Economists writing about baseball alert!
If there are two things I love, they are economics and baseball. As we’ve seen before, economists writing about baseball generates a unique blend of inanity. Apparently that’s not true only when the economist in question is a Keynesian goofball trying to sell you a stock-picking service; even economists as great as Thomas Sowell can end up in the goof trap.
The St. Louis Cardinals’ great hitter Stan Musial was one of those stars who dominated his era in the 1940s and 1950s, and yet is almost forgotten today, even among baseball fans.
The funniest thing about this is that the other goofball I made fun of made a very similar claim. Stan Musial is forgotten? The same Stan Musial who has been chosen by baseball-reference readers as the ninth-greatest hitter of all time? The Stan Musial whose name brings up almost two million hits on Google? Whose 1955 walk-off homer was chosen (weirdly, in my mind — sorry, but I was for Cal all the way) as the greatest All-Star Game moment of all time? Who won the fucking Medal of Freedom five months ago?
Yeah, never heard of him. Give me Edgardo Alfonso any day.
Mention baseball in the 1940s and 1950s, and the names that come to mind immediately are Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio.
Sure. Those were great baseball players. It’s not like there’s a two-man limit; all three of them can be great at the same time.
Yet Stan Musial had a higher lifetime batting average than Joe DiMaggio – and Hank Greenberg hit more home runs in a season, and had more runs batted in, than either Williams or DiMaggio.
Oh lordy lord lord. Thomas. Thomas, Thomas, Thomas. Where to begin?
Okay, first of all: batting average and RBIs suck. But, sure, Musial was a better hitter than DiMaggio; that’s not really in dispute. But DiMaggio was a CF, whereas Musial played corner outfield and 1B. So DiMaggio’s production is correspondingly more valuable, right? Because he plays a harder position? DiMaggio averaged 7.6 WAR per 162 games, Musial only ("only!") 7.0 — because the CF thing gives DiMaggio a boost. DiMaggio also lost his prime years to World War 2, which Musial did not.
Hank Greenberg? Sure, he hit lots of home runs. And that matters — home runs are, contrary to what you may have heard John Kruk say on Baseball Tonight, a very valuable thing. But Greenberg was also a dedicated 1B who only played 13 seasons. Great player. Wonderful player. But you’re saying he’s better than T. Ballgame because T. Ballgame never had 183 RBIs in a season?
Hank Greenberg, career: .313 / .412 / .605 / 1.017, 158 OPS+, 56.8 WAR
Theodore Ballgame, career: .344 / *.482* / .634 / .1.116, 190 OPS+, 125.3 WAR
Come the fuck on. Sure, Teddy topped out at "only" 159 RBIs in a season playing for those piss-poor Red Sox teams, but he was so much better than Hank Greenberg there’s just no comparison. I mean, go here. Look at all the black numbers. Black numbers are best-in-league. Italic black numbers are best in all MLB. And the asterisks around his .482 career OBP? That means best all-time. In the most important raw offensive stat there is.
Seriously, Thomas. I love you, but you’re picking a fight with the third-greatest baseball player who ever lived.
Maybe the reason for the difference is that it is easier to remember some things when they are associated with other things. Ted Williams was the last .400 hitter and Joe DiMaggio’s 56-game hitting streak is a record that may never be broken.
Or maybe the reason for the difference is this:
All-time leaders, career OPS+:
1. Babe Ruth (206)
2. Ted Williams (190)
… skip a bit …
15. Stan Musial (159)
16. Hank Greenberg (158)
There are no similarly spectacular records associated with Hank Greenberg or Stan Musial.
Stan Musial was chosen as the causal agent in the greatest All-Star Game moment in history and won a Medal of Freedom. Greenberg is still the single-season AL RHH RBI leader, which is a little bit of a cherry-pick, but the sort of thing people do care about.
And, of course, they’re both in the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Greenberg hit 58 home runs in a season, so that two more would have tied Babe Ruth’s record at the time. Greenberg also had 183 runs batted in, just one short of Lou Gehrig’s American League record. But close only counts when pitching horseshoes or throwing hand grenades.
No, actually, it’s still pretty great. Whatever RBIs are worth (not much), Gherig’s 184-spot was set on the 1931 Yankees, who had a .383 team OBP and a 125 team OPS+. I’m fairly sure my grandmother could get at least 120 RBI with that kind of support, and she’s been dead for sixteen years. Greenberg’s 1937 Tigers weren’t as good — they had a .370 team OBP and a 104 team OPS+. Greenberg’s feat is more fantastical.
Then spontaneously the article is about boxing. I don’t really know why, but he spends the rest of it talking about how nobody remembers Joe Louis, despite the undeniable fact that I can name five boxers and Joe Louis is one of them. The others, of course, are Mike Tyson, Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, and Soda Popinski.