My final thoughts on the preview

[swampdragon]

I should get the books before the game release. This has pretty much cemented my decision to start in the mid 1880s to take full advantage of them, depending on the stats included.

[legendsport]

Originally Posted by swampdragon

I should get the books before the game release. This has pretty much cemented my decision to start in the mid 1880s to take full advantage of them, depending on the stats included.

Well, the stats are a little thin for that era. You won't have stuff like walks and strikeouts for hitters - much like the MLB stats for that time. But things like doubles, triples and homers are also missing. No fielding stats either, though games played by position are usually listed. So you can mock something up. I'll be interested to see what you come up with.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by legendsport

You won't have stuff like walks and strikeouts for hitters - much like the MLB stats for that time. But things like doubles, triples and homers are also missing.

I'm currently reading "The Rookie Encyclopedia", and it has information on all of that stuff for the rookie stat leaders each year, starting in 1871. It's hard to believe that this information exists for rookies and not for other players.

[swampdragon]

Originally Posted by legendsport

Well, the stats are a little thin for that era. You won't have stuff like walks and strikeouts for hitters - much like the MLB stats for that time. But things like doubles, triples and homers are also missing. No fielding stats either, though games played by position are usually listed. So you can mock something up. I'll be interested to see what you come up with.

I'll probably handle it by editing fictional players. If I don't have information, I'll leave the fictional rating alone. What do you think a PCM ought to be on an imported AAA player? Obviously you have to deflate the stats somewhat, but I don't know whether we're looking at .75 or .90.

[Curtis]

During that century entire minor league teams were regularly being incorporated (and subsequently disincorporating) into the majors. The Union Association was a major in name only. I'd go with .90 or .95, but that's just opinion. Maybe .9 for the minors and .95 for the UA.

[Le Grande Orange]

Speaking of books, one thing I'm looking forward to seeing is the new edition of The Minor League Encyclopedia. Originally it was supposed to be out early last year, but things apparently took longer than expected in terms of putting together all the information on the minor leagues, particularly those leagues which didn't get covered in the earlier edition of the book.

Whenever the new edition comes out, it'll be an invaluable resource.

[swampdragon]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Speaking of books, one thing I'm looking forward to seeing is the new edition of The Minor League Encyclopedia. Originally it was supposed to be out early last year, but things apparently took longer than expected in terms of putting together all the information on the minor leagues, particularly those leagues which didn't get covered in the earlier edition of the book.

Whenever the new edition comes out, it'll be an invaluable resource.

I'm sure I'll pick this one up.

[legendsport]

Originally Posted by swampdragon

I'll probably handle it by editing fictional players. If I don't have information, I'll leave the fictional rating alone. What do you think a PCM ought to be on an imported AAA player? Obviously you have to deflate the stats somewhat, but I don't know whether we're looking at .75 or .90.

What I've done in the past, and you may or may not want to put this much work in, is take about a five-year stretch and find players who played in both the minor league and the majors in the same season. Then total up the stats (ideally they'd be park-adjusted first, but that's just not possible in this era) for each league and compare. I use Access and Excel to do the legwork. That'll give you a good idea of what the MLE is. It's not perfect, but I think it gives a decent benchmark.

Otherwise, for leagues like the International (aka Eastern) league, I'd probably go with something like Curtis suggested, around .9 in most categories. For the Texas League or Southern Association, probably lower (.75 or .8?) since those teams never played as major league teams.

[legendsport]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Speaking of books, one thing I'm looking forward to seeing is the new edition of The Minor League Encyclopedia. Originally it was supposed to be out early last year, but things apparently took longer than expected in terms of putting together all the information on the minor leagues, particularly those leagues which didn't get covered in the earlier edition of the book.

Whenever the new edition comes out, it'll be an invaluable resource.

Yep, I've been waiting on that one as well.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by Curtis

During that century entire minor league teams were regularly being incorporated (and subsequently disincorporating) into the majors. The Union Association was a major in name only. I'd go with .90 or .95, but that's just opinion. Maybe .9 for the minors and .95 for the UA.

Bill James wrote an article for the New Historical Abstract (IIRC) that pegged the UA as the rough equivalent of the modern Midwest League. According to Clay Davenport's translations the Midwest League is a 0.65 or 0.7, or thereabouts.

[legendsport]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

Bill James wrote an article for the New Historical Abstract (IIRC) that pegged the UA as the rough equivalent of the modern Midwest League. According to Clay Davenport's translations the Midwest League is a 0.65 or 0.7, or thereabouts.

Yes, James does spend about 14 pages refuting the UA's status as a major league. I don't remember him saying it was equivalent to the Midwest league, but he did go to great lengths explaining why it wasn't a major league. I'm not sure how you'd MLE it because it only lasted 1 year so you'd have to look at what the players in the UA did before and after the league's existence (and few of them played any length of time in either the NL or AA). My guess is that .9 would be too generous, but .65 would be too low.

[No Pepper]

CBL, legendsport: A very interesting topic about the UA can be found at one of my favorite blogs. Gary Ashwill does great stuff, just great. I think he's around here on the forums somewhere. http://agatetype.typepad.com/agate_t...ense_of_t.html

[legendsport]

Originally Posted by No Pepper

CBL, legendsport: A very interesting topic about the UA can be found at one of my favorite blogs. Gary Ashwill does great stuff, just great. I think he's around here on the forums somewhere. http://agatetype.typepad.com/agate_t...ense_of_t.html

Wow! I've never looked at Gary's blog, but I've got it bookmarked now. You're right - his stuff is great.

Gary actually GMs a team in my one-season-per-week BaTTY league. (Which has two openings: Brooklyn and Cleveland, hint-hint).

[CBL-Commish]

That's a good article, and it's possible my faulty memory was confusing the James article with this paragraph from a Clay Davenport article on the Japanese Leagues:

For perspective, the Federal League, compared to the AL and NL of the mid-teens, rated as .93 and .95 in its two years of existence. It is considered a major league. The American Association of the 1880s lasted nine years; compared to the NL of the same era, it rated as low as .78 (in its debut year), and eventually got as high as .94. The AA is considered a major league. The Union Association only existed for one year, 1884, and it rated at .71, about the same as the present Midwest League. It is considered, by Major League Baseball, to have been a major league (a very bad decision, in my opinion; the St. Louis team, led by Fred Dunlap, was major-league quality, but no other team in the league was.) The Players League of 1890 actually rated as stronger than the NL, with a 1.01 rating. The American League of 1901, when Nap Lajoie hit .426, has a rating of .93.

[CBL-Commish]

dola, reading that full article by Ashwill, I'm in complete agreement that the record books shouldn't be purged of UA stats, because there's nowhere for them to go.

He talks about the lack of a complete (or even incomplete) minor league encyclopedia. For me that's kind of a holy grail. I'd pay a ridiculous sum to get my hands on such a thing. It would be unbelievable to have a reference that listed complete stats for everyone in professional baseball history, major or minor league.

This seems like a project that would be perfect for a collaborative, Wiki or retrosheet-like approach.

[legendsport]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

That's a good article, and it's possible my faulty memory was confusing the James article with this paragraph from a Clay Davenport article on the Japanese Leagues:

Yep, makes sense now. Part of the problem is that the difference in quality between teams in a league varied so greatly, which muddies the issue a bit. If the UA St. Louis club was major league quality or nearly so (say it was .95) while other teams in the same league were, maybe, no better than .65, then what is the "league" overall? It makes for an interesting problem in figuring out an MLE, though it can be done I suppose, because the teams DID play each other after all.

Most people who've studied 19th century baseball would agree that the Player's League was better than the NL - many stars jumped to the PL and it out-drew the NL. The NL survived by bluffing the PL into thinking they (the NL) were more successful and healthy than they actually were.

[swampdragon]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

He talks about the lack of a complete (or even incomplete) minor league encyclopedia. For me that's kind of a holy grail. I'd pay a ridiculous sum to get my hands on such a thing. It would be unbelievable to have a reference that listed complete stats for everyone in professional baseball history, major or minor league.

As would I. I'm sure some of the information is lost forever, though.

[Curtis]

Edit: This post was made obsolete by intervening posts on the second page. *sigh*

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by swampdragon

As would I. I'm sure some of the information is lost forever, though.

That's certainly part of it. Another part is the sheer number of players. I read somewhere an estimate of the historical number of players in the minor leagues compared to those in the majors, and IIRC it was something like ten or twenty times as many players.