Top 50 Hitters Criteria

There are two lists: Career and 5-year peak

Top 50 Hitters of All-Time Criteria:

For this top list, I’m doing two separate lists: one for a career and one for peak performance. Personally, I believe career performance is the main thing we should look at; however, I’m acutely aware that many people much prefer peak performance. And I can’t get behind the merging of the two. You can do that if you would like!

So here are the criteria: (It’s always easier to look at these things beforehand and reason about what you like or don’t like. If you wait until you see the list of players, it’s likely your personal opinions of who you think is best or worst will make you want to “gut” call things.)

For hitting, I used Rbat on baseball-reference. It’s highly correlated to OPS+ which is my favorite metric to use for hitting. It’s not the same but the differences are minor enough that I can get behind it – also the way it’s presented on baseball-reference made it WAY easier to do this project. If you don’t like the idea that Rbat (or OPS) has a “point” system for different hitting events, or you don’t like statistics that are era or park-adjusted, then you will disagree with the basic point model used. But assigning some type of value over a career (and especially a peak) is the premise of a formulaic non-gut-based list!

For peak years, I just used a player’s 5 best years. They did not have to be consecutive. This was time consuming because I had to enter data manually and then do separate computations.

Like my top 100 overall player list, I had some deductions for different eras. I felt like pre-1947 years deserved to be downgraded as opposed to the modern era. All leagues at this time weren’t integrated, so the talent level was diluted (I will get to the Negro Leagues later). Here are the deduction percentages based off the era/league:

*1920-1947 MLB – 10% deduction

*1900-1919 MLB – 20% deduction

*Pre-1900s MLB – 30% deduction

1920-1947 deduction is solely based off a lack of integration with Negro Leagues.

1900-1919 additional deduction is due to a less lively ball and major differences in the manipulation allowed (spitballs, scuffing balls) that was widespread. That’s not even to mention the pervasive gambling and altering of “true” outcomes of statistics.

The pre-1900s additional deduction is due to major rules changes including removing the pitching box, shortening the distance to the mound, banning overhead pitching, etc. It is almost a completely different game.

For this list, as opposed to the top 100 player list, crossover players received the deduction based on those specific years. Ted Williams had a 10% deduction on his pre-1947 years but none for his post-integration ones. That took a lot of time!

Steroid use I decided to tackle as well. There were two categories of players: those with substantial evidence that they had taken PEDs and those that were rumored. After looking at my own (and AI) projections for players like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, I felt like a 25% deduction was in line with my models. For players suspected but with questionable or no evidence (in my mind) there was a 10% deduction (different than the 15% one on my top 100 list). This was for players like Mike Piazza, Ivan Rodriguez, and Jeff Bagwell. A little squishy but not everyone was using PEDs during this time, so I think a deduction is warranted.

I did projections for people serving in wars differently than before as well. Based off the years surrounding a player’s absence, I projected their batting score, then took a 40% deduction. They didn’t play MLB those years, but I don’t think it’s fair to give them zero credit either since they were doing something important! It’s more specific then how I’ve done this in the past and gives players more credit if their years serving the country were mid-career like DiMaggio and Williams.

Now, the things I’m unhappy with…the Negro Leagues. I have been stewing for weeks over how to incorporate Negro Leagues players into this overall list (like I did for my top 100) and have been unable to come up with a system for hitting that I can get behind. Individual years were a nightmare to project, but I did have career totals that I was moderately comfortable with. Unfortunately, the placement of players on the list ultimately made me suspect of my methods. Negro Leagues players got bunched together without much variation and I bailed.