Replay League - 100 years of alternate history!

[Sevsdast]

I see CHA a lot, what's that supposed to mean?

[AESP_pres]

Originally Posted by Sevsdast

I see CHA a lot, what's that supposed to mean?

Chicago White Sox

[Sevsdast]

Originally Posted by AESP_pres

Chicago White Sox

Ain't that CHW?

[3fbrown]

I see it both ways. Same for the Cubs, I see CHN and CHI. Mets are NYM and NYN, etc. I use CHA, others might do it differently.

[3fbrown]

Here we have Guy Bush, a guy whose career stats (remembering that WAR and ERA+ are meaningless before 1948) do not look anything like a HOFer. His career wins and IP are not in the top 100 in league history, and only once did he top 18 wins. His ERA is more than 3.50. He just doesn't look impressive. So let's think about why he was elected to the HOF anyway.

The big picture is that Bush pitched in the high offense twenties and thirties, when a 3.50 ERA was very good. Plus, he only had 11 seasons where he qualified for the ERA title, so his excellent pitching was compressed into just a few years, where he was really valuable. This gives him a very high peak, or if you prefer, his Wins Above Average are quite high, even if his WAR is borderline for the HOF.

Working through his career, Bush was drafted by the Reds in 1924. He spent his first two years working out of the bullpen. In 1926 he was promoted to the rotation, but was below average and lost 19 games. Cincinnati got tired of him, and traded him to the Phillies.

In Philadelphia, Bush was an instant success, winning 23 and the NL Cy Young Award in his first year. In 1928-29 he regressed to being an above average starter - nothing amazing but still a valuable member of the rotation, though he had a losing record both years. In 1930, the highest scoring year of them all, Bush was terrific. His 3.55 ERA was well above the league average of 4.79, and he was pitching in the hitter-friendly Baker Bowl. He went 16-7 and was a top starter. For some reason the Phillies didn't want him around anymore, so they sent him off to Cleveland.

Now 29, Bush was just hitting his stride. Moving to League Park in Cleveland only helped a little bit, as it was also a hitter-friendly stadium. But he managed to bring his ERA down below 3.00 for three straight years, no small feat in the early thirties. He was again a star pitcher. Sadly in 1934 he was injured on opening day, and missed the rest of the season. It was a completely lost year, and he was not able to return until well into the 1935 season. He was as good as ever in 1935 though, when he could pitch.

In 1936 Bush had probably his finest season at age 34. His ERA was 2.71, compared to the league's 4.51, and again in a difficult park for pitchers. He pitched 283 innings, and by ERA had his most productive season. It was hard to tell, but this was the beginning of the end of his glory days, and the end would come quickly.

Bush had another All-Star level season in 1937. In 1938 his ERA remained easily better than the league, but he was injured for part of the season, and spent some time in the bullpen upon his return. The injury must have been especially damaging - or possibly not allowed to heal properly - because he was awful in 1939 as a swingman, and called it quits after the season.

His raw stats don't look so great, but Bush ended up with seven star seasons, and four more that were above average. Unlike other pitchers he didn't have much else to help him compile the counting stats, as he started slowly and ended abruptly. But what he had was impressive enough to get the call to Cooperstown.

[3fbrown]

Mike Caldwell spent most of his career on my Atlanta Braves, so I have mostly (but not entirely) positive memories of his career. He was drafted in the 2nd round of the rookie draft before the 1972 season, and immediately demonstrated the skills that would define his career - top notch control and moderate strikeout totals.

That rookie season Caldwell was pretty darn solid, but starting in his second season he was very good. Part of this is legitimate improvement, but a lot of it is team defense. You will see his BABIP is exceptionally low in several years, and that is largely due to Graig Nettles, Rick Burleson, and especially Garry Maddox. As a low-ish strikeout pitcher, Caldwell did depend on the players behind him a fair amount.

In any case, Caldwell won 20 in 1973, and in 1974 he went 23-7 with a 2.06 ERA, and won the NL CYA. The Braves were the NL West champs for the second straight year, and unlike 1973 they won the pennant and defeated the A's in the World Series. Caldwell was a large contributor to that championship, going 3-1 in the postseason, with a 1.99 ERA.

Going into the late seventies, Caldwell had a few down years, but he picked it up again in the late seventies and early eighties, having many very good years. After the 1984 season, Caldwell was coming off of six excellent seasons, but was entering his age 36 season. The team was mediocre and getting older, so when the Dodgers came calling with a trade offer in which I would receive the good young pitcher Ted Higuera, I took it. This was not a good decision.

The 1985 season turned out to be a barnburner, at least in the NL West. The Braves and Dodgers were tied going into the final day of the season, which the Dodgers won and the Braves lost, so the Dodgers won the west by a single game. Mike Caldwell was definitely still in his prime, leading the league in IP and earning 5 WAR. Given that Higuera earned less than two WAR, this trade pretty clearly cost the Braves the 1985 NL West title. The Dodgers won the World Series that year, and again in 1986, though the Braves were well back that year. To make it worse, Caldwell won a 2nd NL CY Young Award that year, at age 37. That was his best season by WAR. Higuera on the other hand, never amounted to anything.

His 1987 season was also quite good, but in September Caldwell tore his labrum, causing him to miss much of 1988. Even though his 1988 season was of good quality, injuries pushed him out of the majors at the end of that season.

Overall, Caldwell won 280 games with an ERA of 3.12. Those 280 wins are #18 in league history, 11th since the deadball era. He is also one of the league's all-time leaders in walks allowed per 9 innings. I only wish I had kept him through to the end.

[macprivateer]

Originally Posted by 3fbrown

Mike Caldwell spent most of his career on my Atlanta Braves, so I have mostly (but not entirely) positive memories of his career. He was drafted in the 2nd round of the rookie draft before the 1972 season, and immediately demonstrated the skills that would define his career - top notch control and moderate strikeout totals.

That rookie season Caldwell was pretty darn solid, but starting in his second season he was very good. Part of this is legitimate improvement, but a lot of it is team defense. You will see his BABIP is exceptionally low in several years, and that is largely due to Graig Nettles, ....

So now you've mentioned my favorite player and since he obviously was the 3B for your Braves, I just have to ask how he did in the league?


These stories you give are great btw. I did just get going on mine (1901 start) and did the add the way you suggested for the NLP from that file and adjusting based on steamheads graphs. So thanks again for all info.

[splat58]

Great stuff, really enjoying this.

[Sevsdast]

Has anything different happened in this era? (Relocations, Different teams, ETC.)

[3fbrown]

I am on "vacation" so I may post less for a few days. But in the meantime:

So now you've mentioned my favorite player and since he obviously was the 3B for your Braves, I just have to ask how he did in the league?

Short answer: He was Graig Nettles. Very good defense, good power and patience, mediocre batting average. Playing his prime in Atlanta boosted his power numbers.

Long answer: You will have to wait a few weeks...

And good luck with the Negro League players, I really enjoy learning about them. I have neglected posting on that other thread I started about the integrated league, and I have been meaning to post about generally how the Black players are faring. I would be interested to hear your story too once you get going.

Has anything different happened in this era? (Relocations, Different teams, ETC.)

Mostly no, I follow relocation and expansion exactly as it happened, and I use real schedules. I use historically accurate ballpark effects too, from Seamheads ballpark database. Other than having the reserve clause, my main divergence is that there is no DH in my league. Though once I finish the centennial year, I am debating changing things up. I am not a huge fan of the HR/SO environment of modern baseball, so if I continue the league, I may revert to 70's/80's playing environment.

[3fbrown]

I've written about Max Carey before in my old threads, linked at the beginning of this one. The summary: Carey was really good at getting hits.

Carey was drafted by the Phillies, and as a young player in 1911-12, was adequate but nothing great in a platoon (?) role. He had high potential though, and showed a broad skillset with a bit of power, patience, contact, and lots of speed. After those two years, the Phillies decided they could do better, and traded him to the White Sox. I wish I knew who they got for him, because it probably wasn't nearly enough.

Now in Chicago, Carey was able to play every day, and developed into a very good hitter. He hit for high averages, had OK walks and power, and ran a lot, getting in the neighborhood of 50 SB per year. His defense wasn't so great, so the White Sox kept him in LF for his entire career. Out there, he was among a number of elite players competing for the best in baseball, guys like Ty Cobb and Joe Jackson. Carey fit in well with those guys, though those guys were not quite as dominant as you might assume.

When the ball livened up around 1919, Carey's stats jumped too. This was not just a mirage of the environment, he actually became a bit better of a hitter as well. He was 29 in 1919, and he would play nine more full seasons, never hitting below .337, and often much higher. He would regularly steal 40+ bases though 1922, which is a season worth talking about.

Coming into 1922, no player had ever hit .400 in Replay League, or even that close. This is not surprise, as the dead ball era has just ended, and Ty Cobb wasn't the hitting savant he was in real life. It's possible (I don't really know) that Carey's .384 batting average in 1921 was the record at that point. But in 1922 he went nuts, hitting .429. You can read about this in that old link, but only one other season is within 30 points of that number. He had 247 hits, 59 walks, 31 doubles, 18 triples, and 44 SB. Those 247 hits were the league record until 1996, when Edgardo Alfonzo had 259 hits, not coincidentally playing for the Rockies. The funniest part about this season is that not only did Carey not win the AL MVP, he wasn't even the best AL left fielder! The man earning both of those honors - legitimately in my opinion - was a guy we already discussed, George Burns. And that's not a one-time thing - Carey was regularly both awesome, and not quite as good as Burns.

The next year Carey's batting average fell more than 50 points, meaning that he still hit .375, with even more power than before. His steals would fall into the 20s, where he would remain for most of his remaining years. He would hit in the .370s for three years, and would never get anywhere near .300. His last two full seasons, in 1926 and 1927, I have him rated as the best LF in baseball still, even though his defense could not have been strong at that point.

In 1928 he still hit like always, but only played about half the time - I'm not sure if that is due to bad defense or injury. Then in 1929 he only had a few at bats before calling it quits. It really frustrates me that I can't tell what happened - if he got hurt, if he hung on in the minors for a few years, or if the team simply released him. I also can't tell if he ever played in the postseason. But that's life for guys before 1948 for me.

Carey's career totals are impressive, though obviously helped by spending the second half of his career in the hitter-friendly twenties. He had 3131 hits, currently 6th all-time. His .335 batting average is also 6th all-time, though since Alfonzo currently ranks a bit above him and is likely to get lower at some point, 5th seems like his probable destination. His 184 triples are 9th, and his 551 steals are 18th. Many of his other counting stats - AB, etc. - are in the top 50. He spent his career in the shadow of his exact contemporary and direct competitor George Burns. But like Mike Mussina to Pedro Martinez, being worse than one of the all-time greats doesn't make one any less deserving.

(Sorry for the lousy looking stats screenshot, I'm working from my laptop at the moment. I'll try to update with a full shot later on. Same goes for Caldwell.)

Note: Now fixed.

[3fbrown]

You could probably summarize the Replay League career of Gary Carter as a replay of the real Gary Carter's career.

My Gary Carter was drafted, like the real one, by the Montreal Expos. As a rookie in 1975, he was was a fully-formed star. He made the All-Star team, was an above average hitter and fielder, and was worth 4.4 WAR.

1976 was probably his best year - hitting over .300 for the only time in his career, leading the NL in RBI, making the All-Star team, winning his first Gold Glove, and earning 6.8 WAR. To avoid boring you to death, his career looked a lot like these first two seasons - good hitter, very good fielder, among the best catchers in baseball. You can see his stat sheet - he was consistently a star, occasionally an MVP candidate, and the foundation of an excellent Montreal team. In other words, a lot like the real Carter. One big difference - Montreal never traded him to the Mets, and in fact he played his entire career for the Expos.

So let's talk about those Expos. They were a decent expansion team for their first three seasons, but then tanked for the next three. In fact, it was their 58-104 record in 1974 that got them the first pick in the draft that they used on Carter. Ironically enough, they already had Carlton Fisk, but he had struggled from the start, and spent most of his career backing up Carter.

By 1976 the Expos had improved enough to win their first division championship, though they lost the ALCS. At that point, the team was built on pitching and speed. John Montefusco and Steve Rogers anchored the rotation, and other than Carter, the offense was led by Ron LeFlore and Larry Lintz. No, those two guys weren't anything great, but they were fast. In fact, though Lintz stole more than 500 bases in his first five years in the league, 1976 was his only year of being above average. Same goes for LeFlore, he would never again be good.

After taking a step back for two years, the Expos reloaded and won division titles four times from 1979-1983, culminating in consecutive World Series titles in 82-83. They had filled out their rotation a bit behind Rogers and Montefusco with youngsters Britt Burns and Jose DeLeon, and had acquired actual quality hitters to join Carter, most notably Steve and Dave Henderson. Carter, as always, was there being the best position player on a pitching-led team.

The Expos would continue to be good almost every year for the remainder of Carter's career, winning 100 games and another championship in 1987, giving Carter three rings. He was still Montreal's best player that year. In those six postseasons, Carter did what you would expect - hit exactly as well as he did in the regular season, which is a great boost coming from your catcher.

Gary Carter was the premier catcher of the late 70's and early 80's, and his combination of offense and defense made him an easy HOF choice. However, he did not play as long as the real Carter, and his best seasons weren't quite as excellent, so unlike the real Carter, he is clearly not in the top tier of catchers. As you know, the first 60 years was dominated by three guys at catcher - Bresnahan, Dickey, and Berra. The years following Berra did not had a dominant catcher like those guys. Among the modern HOF catchers, Carter is toward the bottom for offensive production (many were either better hitters or played longer), but his stellar defense puts him squarely in the middle of modern HOF catchers. Since his time, there have been three catchers that have risen to the top of baseball. None have yet retired (one is close) but two of them are clearly in the class of those three earlier stars, and they may not be the guys you expect!

[3fbrown]

Frank Chance was the dominant 1B of the dead ball era - nobody else was in his league. He, like the real Chance, was an excellent hitter. He hit for high averages, drew a LOT of walks, and stole a lot of bases. I have no defensive information back then, but I think he was solid.

The real Chance got beaned a few too many times, cutting his career shorter than it should have been. On one hand, my Chance did not have that problem, so he was able to play more and have a more valuable career. On the other hand, since my league began in 1901, he lost a couple of years at the beginning of his career, which skewed his stats a bit. He was a star from the get-go in 1901, so he would presumably been valuable for a few years before as well. Those initial years were some of the best of his career. His career totals aren't super high, but he was extremely valuable in the years that he played.

Chance played for the Senators, who are the worst franchise in AL history. They did not win a pennant the entire time they were in Washington, and even now after 99 years, they still have not won a single championship. Chance never sniffed the postseason, despite having a career that overlapping almost entirely with two other HOFers on his team.

[Note: For some reason, one time when I switched versions, it changed older team references to the more modern abbreviation. That's why Chance appears to play in Minnesota on his stat line.]

[3fbrown]

While the Athletics across town during the late 10's and early 20's had the best offense in league history - and you will definitely be hearing about a bunch of their players in this series - the Phillies were a good team too. In fact, for the first third of league history, Philadelphia was BaseballTown USA. (Boston had a claim too, as you will hear about.) While the Phillies didn't have the star power of their crosstown rivals, they still had a number of major stars. Ray Chapman was one of them.

One of the fun things about playing historical leagues, at least for me, is seeing what could happen to players if history had played out differently. Ray Chapman is, of course, most famous for being killed after he was hit in the head by a pitch from Carl Mays. He was well above average on both offense and defense, and was just 29 when he died. He had already accumulated 29 WAR, so he was a star for sure.

I don't have WAR numbers for Chapman's era, but he was roughly the same quality hitter as the real Chapman, and also had good defense like the real Chapman. So presumably he was also quite valuable - I have him as the best shortstop in baseball over the first half of his career. But the RL Chapman was not killed by a pitch, and thus got to play into the high offense 20's, where he continued being a star hitter and fielder. When you take the league offensive levels into account, his hitting stayed at basically the same quality, other than two down years in 1924-25. He was never a slugger, but he hit for decent averages, drew a lot of walks, and had good speed - he is in the top 25 all-time in stolen bases. Shortstop has actually not been a particularly strong position in Replay League, at least as far as superstar performances over a career. Chapman is certainly among the best shortstops ever to play in the league - possibly The Best if his defense was as good as I think it was. It's hard to tell!

[Note: Out of 10 HOF SS in Replay League, only two are HOF SS in real life. One of them is a HOFer at other positions. That seems like a low amount of overlap, but I haven't checked other positions for comparison. In any case, it is unlikely that anyone would be able to guess more than four of the HOFers at that position, even though you already know two of them!]

The only other shortstop in his era that rivaled his abilities played across town for the A's, and we will talk about him in a few weeks too. While I don't have detailed team information from those days, I know that the Phillies won seven pennants before 1948, and went 6-1 in those World Series appearances. I'll bet that Chapman, whose career covered 40% of that time span, earned more than one championship ring.

[3fbrown]

So here is a guy I did not expect to become an all-time great. Warning: this entry is very long, and talks about the team as much as the player.

Larry Christenson was drafted by the Milwaukee Brewers before the 1973 season. For a guy that had a mediocre career in reality, he was a highly ranked prospect. However, the Brewers were in just their 5th season of existence, and had never been above .500. They decided to keep Christenson in the minors for all of 1973, where he was terrific, mostly in AA.

In 1974, after a few games in AAA, the Brewers called him up to the bigs. He was immediately above average, in particular showing a talent for keeping the ball on the ground and in the park. Still, those first two seasons were losing ones for him and the Brewers. This was in part to poor offensive support, though that did improve some in 1975.

In 1976, Christenson continued his ground ball ways, and continued to also improve his control. He only allowed 9 HR in 266 innings, the first of four times he would pitch more than 260 innings and allow single-digit HR. It was also the first year he walked fewer than three batters per nine innings, and the 2.7 he walked per nine in 1976 was the highest of his remaining career. The Brewers also continued to get better, posting their first winning season with 82 wins. The offense was still mediocre, but the starting rotation was absolutely dominant. The worst ERA of their top five SP was 3.30, and four of the starters had more than 5 WAR. The rotation included Gene Brabender, Rick Reuschel, Monty Montgomery, and Dick Drago. All except Drago were legitimate stars - he was just having his career year.

1977 brought 86 wins for the Brewers (despite being outscored), but a 5th place finish in the competitive AL East. Young Keith Hernandez was coming into his own, but the rotation again led the way. It wasn't as good as in 1976, but everyone was back except Drago, who was replaced by several lesser guys. But Christenson won 21 games with a 2.71 ERA, made the All-Star team, was 2nd place in CYA voting, and was worth 7 WAR. Spoiler: He would be worth 7 or more WAR in 11 of the next 12 years!

Christenson was about the same pitcher in 1978, showing very good control, hardly ever allowing homers, and striking out relatively few batters. Milwaukee bumped up to 87 wins, and with a strong rookie season from Lou Whitaker (plus Hernandez's usual solid performance) looked to be improving on offense. The pitching was good again, as Christenson and Montgomery were their usual strong selves, but the rest of the staff was a patchwork of solid performances. The Brewers ended up in 3rd place, but the Red Sox were an offensive juggernaut, led by Andre Dawson, and looked tough to overcome.

In 1979, the Brewers broke through to win the AL East. The offense caught up to the pitching staff, so they had a balanced attack, and Boston's poor pitching could not keep up. On offense, Keith Hernandez had his best year, leading the league in OBP and sporting a 172 OPS+ and nearly 8 WAR. Whitaker had a good sophomore season also. The rest of the offense was just OK, but without many holes. Christenson led the pitching staff, with Montgomery not too far behind. Despite this success, they were easily tossed aside by the eventual champion Royals in the ALCS. That Royals team actually looked a lot like the Brewers - good enough offense and solid pitching with one huge SP, in their case Jerry Reuss having one of the great seasons in league history. Christenson pitched well in his two starts, but the offense did nothing to help.

1980 was The Year for the Brewers. The offense was now among the very best in the league, and the pitching was far better than any other AL team. AL teams allowed 4.3 runs per game that year, and the best team outside Milwaukee allowed 4.0. The Brewers on the other hand only allowed 3.4 per game, which adds up to about 100 fewer runs than any other team. That added up to 101 wins and an easy division title. Christenson had a season for the ages, going 23-3, 1.73. That got him the Cy Young Award obviously, and the key was dropping his walks down to league-leading levels, to go with his tiny HR totals. The only way to beat him was to get loads of singles, but with the good offense supporting him, that was rarely enough. The offensive explosion was not coming from Hernandez and Whitaker, who had decent but lesser seasons. It was due to a bounce back from 33 year old Amos Otis, and career seasons from recent trade acquisitions Keith Moreland and Warren Cromartie. The big news though was a third star in the rotation. Christenson and Montgomery were still on top of their games, but 21-year-old rookie Bill Gullickson arrived on the scene as their immediate equal, winning 20 with a 2.16 ERA*. Sadly for Christenson, they could not overcome the clearly inferior Royals, who were headed to a 2nd consecutive World Series title. While he pitched well in 1979, he stunk it up in his two starts in 1980, so he was directly at fault for the loss this time around.

* Amazingly enough, Gullickson did not win the ROY award. That went to Lonnie Smith. While Smith was definitely worse, he did lead the league in hitting (.363), OBP (.426), and SB (74).

The Brewers took a step back in 1981, no surprise for a team led by fluky hitting seasons from mediocre players the year before. They won 86, but ended up five games back of Boston. Christenson had another great season, and Gullickson stepped up and won the CY Award, but they had less support from teammates. The five position players I mentioned last time were all fine, but nobody was better than that. And noticable, Monty Montgomery took a big step back.

The 1982 Brewers went .500, as everyone outside of Christenson and Gullickson and Cromartie took a big step back. Montgomery was done being an effective pitcher and would be out of the league within a year. Moreland and Hernandez were decent, but Whitaker was below average and was pushed to SS part-time to make room for Steve Sax, who wasn't any better. The cracks were showing in the Milwaukee franchise. The young position players were not performing well, and the pitching staff was a two-man show.

Milwaukee hit a low point in 1983, finishing at 80-82, despite the usual superstar performances from Christenson and Gullickson. The team got solid performances from younger players like Alan Wiggins, Frank Wills, and Brad Havens, but none of those guys seemed talented enough to keep it up. The older foundational players didn't seem to have much to offer, and even Hernandez - who played well when he could - was losing more and more time to nagging injuries. Things were looking bleak for Christenson and the Brewers.

Suddenly, in 1984, the team improved to 91 wins and a third place finish. There were bounceback seasons from the usual suspects - Hernandez, Whitaker, Moreland, and Cromartie. Christenson and Gullickson continued to be superstars, and in fact Christenson won his 2nd Cy Young award and led the league in WAR for the second straight year with 8.7. His game changed a bit too - he started allowing a few more HR, but stopped walking guys altogether. Gullickson's 7.6 WAR was awfully good too. But the thing that got the team excited was the performance of rookie pitcher Roger Clemens*. Clemens was 2nd in CYA voting, and led the league in ERA, innings, strikeouts, K/9, and WHIP. The addition of Clemens made the Brewers look like the 90's Braves - three superstar SP. If they could get consistent offense, they would be hard to stop.

* Once again, our man did not win the ROY award. This time it was Danny Tartabull, playing shortstop, that stole the hardware from a deserving Brewer, though Tartabull was arguably as good as Clemens.

Indeed, the 1985 Brewers were hard to stop. They won 105 games, and they did it exactly as you would expect. Their Big 3 was dominant, and young pitchers Joe Hesketh and Curt Young rounded out a formidable rotation. Hernandez and Moreland stepped up with big years with the bat, and rookie Rob Deer provided some power. The rest of the offense was asleep at the wheel, but when the opponents can't score, it is enough. The Brewers sneaked by the A's in the ALCS to make their first ever World Series. There they faced the Dodgers - these was the Dodgers team that beat out my Braves by one game after I traded them Mike Caldwell. Christenson pitched well in the postseason, but it wasn't enough to overcome the underdog Dodgers this year.

Apparently the loss to the Dodgers hit the Brewers hard, because they fell to 69-93 in 1986, last place in the east. Christenson and Clemens were very good, but the rest of the pitching staff was awful. What about Bill Gullickson? He was traded to the Red Sox in the offseason. That wasn't necessarily the problem, as they received Terry Pendleton in exchange, and he was great in '86. But two pitcher - even great ones - don't make a staff. And the position players were unimpressive. Pendleton was excellent, and the usual guys were adequate: Hernandez, Moreland, Cromartie, Deer. But nobody else was any good. Whitaker was traded away, and the middle infield of Sax & Ozzie Guillen was just bad. The team turned into a pumpkin overnight, and it was hard to tell if they should be optimistic or pessimistic about the future.

1987 was the year of the rabbit ball. Milwaukee decided to ignore that. The offense - and the names were basically the same - was bad. The usual guys were OK, but they had many holes. But the pitching was so good! They allowed 150 fewer runs than any other team in the AL. With pitching that superior, even a bad offense is enough, and they won 91 games and the division title. In addition to Christenson and Clemens, they found a replacement for the departed Gullickson with rookie David Wells. His 2.30 ERA in the high offense year of 1987 was amazing indeed. Joe Hesketh was a very good #4 starter as well. The Brewers got destroyed by KC in the ALCS, and despite pitching very well in his single start, Christenson lost his one chance to help the team. Christenson did pitch his first no-hitter, at age 33.

Milwaukee pitched just as well in 1988, but the offense stepped up to be average. This led to 99 wins, and they needed every one to win the east by a single game over Will Clark's Yankees. Christenson was 22-9, 2.37, in his last truly outstanding season. He pitched a second no-hitter, almost exactly a year after his first. The Christenson-Clemens-Wells trio was the best top 3 in baseball, something Milwaukee was used to having at this point. The offense got a big overhaul in '88, and in particular, Keith Hernandez's excellent career was nearing its end. But helping Terry Pendleton bring the offense up to average were Dave Martinez, Jose Lind, Terry Steinbach, and Mike Kingery. Not an amazing bunch, but with a rotation so strong at the top, not sucking is all you are really asking for. The Brewers took down the resurgent Mariners to make their second World Series appearance, with Christenson pitching well in his two appearances. There they met a well-balanced Giants attack led by rookie SS Gary Sheffield, 3B Ken Caminiti, and SP Scott Bankhead. Christenson again dominated in two starts, helping Milwaukee to their first championship, and winning the World Series MVP. Overall that postseason, in four starts, Christenson was 3-0 with a 1.36 ERA, allowing only five runs. This would be the crowning moment of Christenson's long career.

Now 35 years old, Christenson had been awesome for a dozen years, the AL's best pitcher during that time. But the good times can't last forever. He took a step back in 1989, as his strikeouts dropped from near average to well below. His control was still good, and the ball still stayed on the ground, so he was still a very good pitcher, with 5.5 WAR. But he wasn't quite the same guy. The team had a similar year, finish 81-81, but in 6th place. I won't spend too much time on other players, but most were a bit worse than the year before, though the same guys were still good.

In 1990, everything fell apart for the Brewers. Clemens was traded to the Red Sox. Wells' ERA ballooned to league average, and he was lucky to even be that good. Christenson's strikeouts dropped so much that he was demoted to the bullpen, and while he performed admirably there, his margin of error was gone. Pendleton was terrible, Cromartie was getting old, and the offense stank. The team fell to 90 losses. For Christenson, this was the end. He would try to make it back in 1991, but was stuck in AAA the entire season, and would retire after that season. The Brewers' run of smothering the opposition offense was over. But there was a light if you knew where to look - young players like Ray Lankford and Junior Felix looked to remake the team into a slugging power!

After far too many words, let's look at Christenson's career. He won 282 games, #17 all-time, and he is #20 all-time is games started and #24 in innings. His ERA of 2.89 is outstanding, as are his 0.4 HR/9 and 2.2 BB/9. He racked up 112 WAR, 5th since 1948 when such stats are recorded. He won a couple of CYAs, was an All-Star eight times, won the WS MVP, and pitched over 100 postseason innings with an ERA lower than he had in the regular season. He's even 19th all-time in strikeouts! He produced quality starts in about 70% of his career starts, and never spent a single day on the Injured List. He was a star of the greatest magnitude, and outshined and outlasted his rotation-mates like Gullickson, Montgomery, Clemens, and Wells.

[3fbrown]

If you read the novel about Larry Christenson, good for you. Or maybe you should rethink your life choice, I'm not sure. Either way, I will try to keep the story of Jack Clark to a more reasonable length.

One of the more recent HOF inductees, Jack Clark was drafted by the SF Giants for the 1976 season, in which he was 20 years old. Clark is one of a number of players in RL history for whom his position makes a big difference in how he is seen, and how valuable he is. In my experience, the AI tries to put players at the most difficult position they can handle, and that's with a very generous definition of the word "handle." We'll see other players more extreme than Clark in this series, but in one comical example, the Phillies traded for Steve Garvey and tried to make him into a second baseman. That experiment was not successful.

In any case, Clark played the majority of his rookie season in CF. While his hitting was quite good even at age 20, his defense in CF was putrid, worth -17 runs. So despite the 130 OPS+, 39 SB, and an All-Star game appearance, he was barely better than average. In 1977 he played more in RF and CF, and he was above average in RF. Combined with excellent hitting, Clark was now a 4+ WAR player at age 21, and looked to be a major force in the NL.

That wasn't wrong, but the Giants put him back into CF for most of 1978, where he again was clearly out of his league. Good hitting kept him above average overall, but he was costing his team with the glove. Mercifully, that was the end of the CF experiment with Clark.

At some point I have to mention - the Giants of this era were probably the best team in the NL. During Clark's career, from 1976-1994, the Giants won 10 division titles, five NL pennants, and three World Series championships. Clark played a lot of postseason games. Unfortunately he did not play play particularly well, and only played a big postseason role in one World, that being the 1989 team, the first of consecutive championships the team won. Otherwise Clark was below average with the bat in the playoffs. In 1976 he hurt his thumb in the first game of the NLCS and did not play again that fall.

1979 had Clark mostly in RF, with some time at 1B. Already his defense in RF had declined to a bit below average, while he was clearly a very good 1B. Despite not having a good 1B, the Giants insisted on running Clark out to RF nearly every day for the next five years, as he grew slowly less agile. He could still rake, and was still an All-Star caliber player, as shown by the six All-Star appearances in his first eight seasons. But he could have been better if the team just parked him at 1B. Strangely enough he actually had a fluky adequate season in the field in 1983, mostly because he racked up 26 OF assists. This was apparently enough to win the Gold Glove, though he clearly was not that good.

Finally, in 1984, the Giants did it. They let him play 1B all year! In return, Clark played excellent defense at 1B. He also rewarded the team with his best season at the plate, hitting .282 with 39 HR, 106 walks, a league-leading 116 runs scored, and 24 steals. This added up to a 171 OPS+ and 8 WAR, good enough for 2nd place in the MVP race. I should mention that this was Clark's 7th and final year going 20-20. Clark actually had more SB than HR for most of his career, which doesn't jive with my memory of the real (older) Clark, but I am not old enough to remember Clark as a youngster.

Though 1984 was Clark's peak hitting season, he kept on hitting very well for many years. But there was one problem: In 1985, the Giants drafted Glenn Davis. Davis was a stud - an immediate slugging superstar - so Clark got the boot back out to RF, where he now just plain stank. He would continue making All-Star games through 1986, nine overall, due to his hitting. But starting in 1987, injuries would begin eating into his playing time.

Clark's bat held up strong through the 1992 season, but defense kept him from being the superstar he could have been. In 1993 his bat finally slowed down, as he struck out 141 times in 565 plate appearances, and was below average at the plate for the first time in his career. In fact before then the worst OPS+ he had ever had was 122. Obviously Clark has to hit to be useful, so after being a bench player briefly in 1994 he was sent to the minors, never to return.

Overall Clark posted 65 WAR, which is a borderline HOFer. By WAR, he was consistently very good, but only great in 1984. But this isn't the entire story. The Giants continually put him at positions he could not handle, even with little reason to keep him away from 1B, a position he excelled at (at least before 1985). As a result, Clark was worth -78 runs at RF, and -41 runs at 1B, in only 200 games! That's about -12 WAR just from bad defense, much of which he could have avoided if the Giants didn't feel the need to play the likes of Tony Solaita and Karl Pagel. Clark may be a marginal HOFer by the numbers, but I think he deserves more credit than that.

One last note, this story is very similar to that of Ken Griffey, Sr. Griffey had a shorter career than Clark, and was even worse on defense, but also was played out of position for almost his entire career. So despite hitting as well as Clark, he has only 50 WAR and is not in the HOF. This has also kept Dick Wakefield and Toby Harrah out of the HOF despite amazing careers with the bat.

[Brad K]

I just finished the 1983 season. Christenson is the 4th highest paid player in baseball at $1,220,000.

Bert Blyleven and Robin Yount are each at $1,240,000 and Bobby Grich is at $1,320,000

[3fbrown]

I just finished the 1983 season. Christenson is the 4th highest paid player in baseball at $1,220,000.

Bert Blyleven and Robin Yount are each at $1,240,000 and Bobby Grich is at $1,320,000

Maybe his success in RL wasn't as big a surprise as I thought!

For what it is worth, while Christenson was an all-time great, none of the other guys you mentioned are HOFers, though all were decent or better. Yount was a great defender and played forever, but was a bad hitter from the start. Grich was very good, but he stopped making contact in his early thirties and was finished pretty young. Blyleven was the best of the bunch, the top strikeout pitcher of his day, but his arm couldn't stay healthy enough.

[3fbrown]

The tale of Harlond Clift is like Chapter 2 of the Frank Baker Story. It's also like the real Harlond Clift Story, but without the strange collapse at age 30.

As a reminder, Frank Baker was not an all-world player in Replay League. He was really good, but more importantly, he was the best 3B for the first 40 years of RL. He was on the borderline for the HOF (at best) but since I couldn't justify having no HOF 3B for 40+ years, he was inducted.

Our man Mr. Clift was the first guy to come along and challenge Mr. Baker for 3B supremacy. It took a bit though. As a rookie for the Cubs in 1934, Clift spent a lot of time on the bench, and wasn't great when he played. Things improved some in 1935, but went backward in 1936. In those three seasons, Clift had a bit more than a full season's worth of plate appearances, and was a below average hitter. I *think* his defense was better than average, but I have no stats to back me up, only memory and inference.

In 1937, Clift finally got the chance at a full-time starting gig, and he was ... mediocre. Not bad or anything, and maybe pretty solid depending on how good his defense was, but he wasn't anything special. As far as his team goes, I have no records for that back then. But I know that the Cubs have won eight pennants, and only one came after 1948 (barely - it was 1952), so it is quite likely that Clift's clubs were good. I know that late in his career the Cubs were a first division team, so I suspect Clift played in a few World Series. They only won two of those pre-1948 World Series though, so he may not have had much success.

1938 was the breakout year for Clift. For the next five years he would be the best 3B in baseball, hitting around the .270's with about 20 HR and 100 RBI per year. This was the peak of his career, when he established himself as a major star.

1943 was a poor year for Clift, strangely like his actual career. In real life he faded away for reasons I don't really understand. But this Clift bounced back with more good seasons from 1944-48, another five years of being among the best in baseball. For this stretch he was the 2nd best third baseball in baseball, so still a perennial All-Star, at least in theory, since I have no actual information about that. Well, that's not completely true. I have info starting in 1948, and he was an All-Star that year, though it would be his last.

At this point, Clift was a star for his hitting - good batting averages, very good patience, and solid power. He never bettered the 23 HR he had back in 1939, but he was usually in the teens or low twenties. He also stole bases efficiently, succeeding in about 80% of his career attempts.

At age 36 in 1949, Clift slowed way down. His hitting declined, his defense was bad (I don't know what it was before, though it appears to be average in 1948), and he lost playing time to new acquisition Red Schoendienst. And that was it. He had a handful of terrible plate appearances as a pinch hitter in 1950 and 1951, then retired. He was quickly inducted into the Hall of Fame as one of the best at his position over the first half of the league's history, and the best in his team's history until modern times.

[3fbrown]

Did I mention that Frank Chance had some HOF teammates? Here's one!

I see Ty Cobb's career as more instructive than exciting. But it's exciting in its own way. First the excitement. Ty Cobb played forever. My Cobb was a couple hundred at bats ahead of the actual Ty Cobb, which is pretty amazing, since he ranks 5th all-time in real life. My Cobb is #1, nobody ever had more at bats than Cobb, though he is only #2 in plate appearances. More significantly, he is #1 all time in hits with 3528. He's #2 in doubles, #1 in triples, #4 in stolen bases, #4 in runs.

But all of that overrates him by quite a bit. My Cobb played center field for the first seven years of his career. But then in 1912, at age 25, he got moved over to left field permanently. I have no record of why this happened - whether this was due to bad defense or maybe the Senators acquired a better CF. Either way he was in LF for most of his career. And he wasn't the best LF of his era. He wasn't even a .300 hitter for most of his career, until the live ball came around in the 20's and raised everyone's batting stats.

My Cobb was a good center fielder, but not as good as Tris Speaker, who showed up a few years after him. When he moved to LF, he was among the best, but maybe not as good as Max Carey. Then when he got to his thirties, George Burns was definitely superior. Cobb was a star, just not a superstar.

But he was a good player for a really long time, like 21 years before he finally got old. Which brings me to how Cobb is instructive. I have player development on, so while players start at something resembling their real talent, they can evolve up or down. But guys like Cobb, they can't really evolve up - they are already at the ceiling of how good a player can realistically be. They can only really go down. Inevitably the true megastars seem to disappoint, outside of a few that manage to keep up with their actual selves. [Note: this really only applies to hitters, I will describe pitcher evolution sometime later.]

So Cobb had the advantage of being awesome, but the "disadvantage" of only being able to get worse. And he got worse for sure. But he had another advantage - youth. Cobb arrives at age 18. So while he may not have been nearly as good as the real Cobb, he was still good enough, and got into the league so young, that he had lots of time to accumulate value. And so he did, enough to be the all-time league leader in hits despite barely hitting .300 for his career. Hank Aaron was similar in a lot of ways.

I don't mean to disparage him - he was a genuine slugger for his era, and he was definitely a superior hitter in his early days, in the heart of the deadball era. But he was more of an accumulator of stats than a generational superstar. He was more Paul Molitor than Mickey Mantle.