@BtB: First Basemen WAR Review

Image by Kjunstorm via Flickr

Tonight I posted a WAR review of the most valuable first basemen in MLB history. Pete Rose is the most notable Red to appear--he played 1B more than any other position.

Tony Perez ranks 29th all-time among first basemen, behind Fred McGriff and ahead of George Sisler.

An all-Reds 1B review is underway. :)

Recap of a Curve Game

Image via Wikipedia

Went to an Altoona Curve game this evening. Let's just say that going with a 3-year old and a 3 month old, while a wonderful time, is not the best opportunity to scout our division rivals' AA team.

It was a blow-out by the third inning, though the Curve scored four in the 9th to bring the score 9-7. We left at the 7th inning stretch...kids getting cranky at their bedtime.

I saw two PA's by Pedro Alvarez. He took a called third strike and then popped out to short right. He was DHing tonight, so I didn't get to see him in the field.

Gorkys Hernandez grounded out the PA I clearly saw him, which was his first. I heard him hit an RBI triple, but I was in the bathroom stall helping my daughter go potty.

Ray Chang of WBC fame also had a great game. I saw him line a double to left field to drive in the Curve's first run. He apparently hit another at some point, but I missed it (maybe in the 9th?). Also made some slick plays in the field.

My 3-year old ate her first bag of Cracker Jack tonight. And she has demonstrably improved her bouncy house skills over the past year to being clearly above replacement level. The gymnastics lessons probably have helped with that.

Offense and Defense Over Reds History

Mike has a nice post today that tries to rank this year's Reds offense for futility compared to other best-bad offenses in franchise history.

I thought I'd do a quick little study myself. I calculated actual team runs scored above NL average and runs allowed above NL average, after park factor correction, from 1890-2008 (ok, so I only have park factors for 1901+ teams). For 2009, I did the same, but I extrapolated to 162 games to make the data comparable.

By using park factors and the NL Average baseline, I should be correcting for pretty much everything aside from level of competition. Also note that I'm strictly using actual runs data--no RC, lwts, BsR, DIPS, UZR, etc. I love looking at components because they're less noisy (e.g. the BtB Power Rankings), but you also risk losing some information that the component stats don't take into account. So, for that reason, I think it makes the most sense to just start with straight up RS and RA.

Anyway, here are those data graphically.
Above-average is good on both offense and defense. The line is a 10-year moving average, because there are huge year-to-year fluctuations.

The past decade excepted, the Reds have traditionally had good defense (meaning pitching + fielding). Offensively, there really are only a few times when they've consistently posted above-average hitting clubs--though you can clearly see how remarkable the Big Red Machine era was (those two little dots blue dots near the top of the graph are runs scored above average in 1975 and 1976...man oh man). Since then, the Reds have basically fluctuated around average on offense.

As far as best- and worst-offensive seasons go, here you are:

Top-10 Reds Offenses

Rank	Year	RSAA
1	1976	204
2	1975	180
3	1972	135
4	1965	125
5	1974	123
6	2005	103
7	1973	99
8	1939	98
9	1919	90
10	1968	86

Those '70's teams were really good at hitting the baseball.

Also, I think I remember there were a lot of complaints about too many home runs in 2005. Remember those days? :)

Worst-10 Reds Offenses

Rank	Year	RSAA
1	1930	-183
2	1982	-133
3	1951	-133
4	1945	-128
5	1932	-120
6	1891	-118
7	1929	-117
8	1934	-110
9	1893	-102
10	1933	-101
11	2009	-97
12	1997	-95

Ok, I cheated and gave you 12. The current Reds team is on pace (I'm extrapolating) to be the 11th-worst Reds offense, at least by this measure. What surprised me was that the '97 team showed up as just a tad "better." I guess I'd forgotten how bad that offense was, but they had four starters OPS below 0.700, including Pokey Reese at a brilliant 0.571.

And holy crap, that 1930 team was horrible. Harry Heilmann hit 0.333/0.416/0.577 for that team, but there wasn't much of a supporting cast. They won 59 games.

Top-10 Reds Defenses

Rank	Year	RAAA
1	1896	152
2	1940	142
3	1890	114
4	1904	112
5	1944	111
6	1964	110
7	1925	105
8	1999	104
9	1990	101
10	1967	96

If you glance back up at the graph, there were two large peaks in Reds' defense in the '20s and in the '40s, and you see some of that in this table. The 1890's also had some brilliant defenses, including probably their best defensive team ever in 1896. The 1940 team included Bucky Walters and Paul Derringer in the rotation, and won the World Series over the Tigers.

And two of the last three Reds teams to make the post-season (I count the 1-game playoff against the Mets in '99 postseason, technicalities be damned!) are on this list. Big Red Machine teams don't appear, though the '75 team ranks 18th.

And now...

Worst-10 Reds Defenses

Rank	Year	RAAA
1	1901	-169
2	2005	-162
3	2004	-135
4	2003	-123
5	1894	-113
6	1934	-105
7	1931	-83
8	1916	-82
9	1948	-74
10	2001	-72

I mean, like, holy crap, the 2001-2005 was a pretty horrible time for run-prevention, eh? I don't think offense was the problem in 2005.

One last thing. Since I had the data in front of me, I calculated PythagenPat-estimated winning percentages for all Reds teams since 1890. Through last night's game, the Reds have been outscored 81743-81634 since 1890, which results in a PythagenPat of 0.4994 since they joined the National League.

Top-10 PythagenPat Winning % Reds Teams

Rank	Year	PythW%	RSAA	RAAA
1	1975	0.662	180	77
2	1919	0.654	90	93
3	1976	0.639	204	18
4	1940	0.629	41	142
5	1939	0.616	98	79
6	1896	0.614	11	152
7	1972	0.607	135	21
8	1904	0.607	23	112
9	1994	0.602	78	41
10	1974	0.595	123	26
11	1999	0.593	41	104
12	1995	0.586	80	44

Big Red Machine at the top, naturally.

That 1919 team is interesting, as they were, of course, the "victims" (benefactors?) of the Black Sox scandal. The story you always hear is that the Reds were a vastly inferior team to the Sox, and how the Sox gave the series away. Maybe they did, but if they played to the best of their abilities, I wouldn't be surprised to see this Reds team still beat them. They were a very, very good team.

I was also surprised to see three teams from the mid-late '90's on this list (though I cheated a bit to get them on there again). The '99 team is a favorite of mine, but the '94 and '95 teams were superb as well. Both years were shortened seasons, so they might have posted even higher numbers vs. average had they played 162 games both years. Damned strike.

Worst-10 PythagenPat W% Reds Teams

Rank	Year	PythW%	RSAA	RAAA
1	1901	0.326	-91	-169
2	1934	0.360	-110	-105
3	1930	0.380	-183	-17
4	2003	0.385	-67	-123
5	1945	0.385	-128	-36
6	1933	0.387	-101	-49
7	1948	0.387	-90	-74
8	1931	0.397	-73	-83
9	1932	0.401	-120	-25
10	1891	0.403	-118	-26

The '30s were not a good time to be a Reds fan. Makes the 2000's look like...well, maybe not quite a golden era, but the '30's make our current decade look a lot better. The '30's had five consecutive seasons with actual winning percentages below 0.400 (1930-1934). The Reds' most recent season below 0.400 was 27 years ago (1982; 0.377 in reality, 0.415 by PythagenPat).

The '39 and '40 teams must have been incredibly special to this town. It's before my time, though, and I'm just starting to learn about those players and teams.

For the record, 2009 is on pace to be the 20th-worst team in Reds history.

Almost all raw data is from the Baseball Databank.

More on judging deals at the time they are made

Fantastic interview with Chris Antonetti that talks a lot about how the Indians evaluated risk prior to inking Travis Hafner. It's very relevant to my last post about problems with post-hoc analyses. Here's an excerpt:

So then, you must feel perfectly good about that whole process.

Yeah. There are obviously different degrees of outcomes in any decision you make, and I think what we try to look through and look back on the process, and how complete and how effective the process was, irrespective of the outcome. You could have a very good process and still bad outcomes. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case in Travis' case - again, our expectation and our belief is that he's gonna come back and with his physical issues behind him will go back to being a very, very productive major league hitter.

Well ... come on, I think you could say that it has not worked out at least on the medical side the way you hoped it would.

Oh, certainly, so far, that's correct, yeah.

So then, would it be fair to say that, with the management team currently in place, if faced with the exact same set of circumstances again, you go ahead and sign that same contract?

With the information we had at that point? Yeah. Yep. I think that's fair to say.

So from the day you signed the contract until now, a season and a half later, realistically, the contract that that player could command on the market has gone down precipitously, and yet you would look back at that and say, "There's nothing about that experience that would make us change our process at all."

With the information we had at point, no. Yes, I would say that. I would say that's correct. We are comfortable with the process we had to arrive at that decision.

I also thought that this last bit was an interesting comment.

But you've concluded that the process was as good as you thought it was?

And as good as we could have done with the information we had at that point. I think you can get into bigger questions about team building, about committing significant dollars in a market our size to a player at that end of the defensive spectrum. That's a different strategic question than what we thought of the process arriving at the decision and the risk associated with signing Travis to a long-term deal.

Interesting point about market size & player type. I guess you can make the argument that a guy at the far right of the defensive spectrum (1B or DH) is riskier simply because all of his eggs are in one basket. A shortstop might decline offensively, but still provide defensive value. If a 1B/DH doesn't hit, they have no value. That said, offensive projections are more reliable than defensive projections, so that might counter things a bit. Neat idea, anyway.

FWIW, I still think the Reds need to buy out Votto ASAP while he can still be signed for a massively below-market contract. :)

Hat tip to Tango.

Why do we bother trying to judge trades as they happen?

There's a tendency in the media and among fans to evaluate trades after the fact. You wait a few years, see which teams win out, and then see which team got the most value.

On the other hand, many of us also like to try to judge a trade as it happens. Everyone does this, some using a qualitative approach and others using a quantitative approach (e.g. my analysis of the Rolen trade). Yet some would say that we shouldn't evaluate a trade until after the fact, as there's just too much uncertainty in trying to forecast the future--and what matters are results, right?

I certainly agree that there are big error bars around quantitative trade analyses. But I still think there's a lot of merit in trying to judge trades as they happen, because it helps us recognize quality moves by GM's--regardless of the eventual outcome. You can make what, by all information available, is a great trade at the time, only to have some bad luck (injuries, etc) derail it in a post-hoc analysis. I still think we should recognize that the GM made a smart move, even if it falls apart later.

Paul DePodesta wrote a great article about this that I've been meaning to link to for a long time. Here's an excerpt:

As tough as a good process/bad outcome combination is, nothing compares to the bottom left: bad process/good outcome. This is the wolf in sheep's clothing that allows for one-time success but almost always cripples any chance of sustained success - the player hitting on 17 and getting a four. Here's the rub: it's incredibly difficult to look in the mirror after a victory, any victory, and admit that you were lucky. If you fail to make that admission, however, the bad process will continue and the good outcome that occurred once will elude you in the future. Quite frankly, this is one of the things that makes Billy Beane as good as he is. He is quick to notice good luck embedded in a good outcome, and he refuses to pat himself on the back for it.

Reds WAR Review: Catchers

Bubbles Hargrave is probably the 4th-best catcher in Reds history. I hadn't heard of him. Yes, I'm lame. Image via Wikipedia

At BtB, I've started a series of recaps looking at the most valuable players at each position of all time, as measured by Rally's WAR database. Since I'm a Reds fan, I'm going to do a mirrored series here looking at past Reds greats. It will be a great way to help me learn some Reds history, and has the added bonus of keeping my mind off the current Reds team's woes.

Keep in mind a few caveats: the WAR values you see here are only for those seasons (or partial-seasons) players spent with the Reds. Second, WAR is not a perfect measure of value (I think it is the best available stat of its kind). And third, even if WAR was perfect in measuring what it tries to, career WAR value is necessarily the best way to evaluate who is the "best" player (i.e. peak seasons matter just as much as total career value when deciding things like that).

We'll begin the series with a Top-10 list of Reds catchers!

10. Ivey Wingo.

Debut	Seasons	PA	Offense	wOBA	FldRns	Fld/700PA	PosAdj	WAR	WAR/700PA
1915	13	3302	-63	0.313	-5	-1	48	7.3	1.5

This is the kind of lousy Reds fan I am: Wingo played in the second-most seasons by any Reds catcher, and ranks third in PA's among any Reds catcher. And I had never heard of the guy. Wingo wasn't a particularly great player (tied for lowest WAR/yr rate of anyone in the top-18 Reds catchers), but he played a long time, and at his retirement held the NL record for most games caught. His best year with the Reds was in 1917, when he hit 0.266/0.311/0.376 in 432 PA's in a league that averaged 0.249/0.305/0.328. That was good for a half-win above average, which translates to 2.3 wins above replacement that year. His tenure with the club included an appearance in the Reds' 1919 World Championship team, which (in)famously defeated the "Black Sox" that year. He also served as manager of the Reds for two whole games during the 1916 season, nestled between the managerial careers of Buck Herzog and Christy Mathewson. Wingo ended his career with the Reds.


9. Smoky Burgess. Reds Hall of Fame.

Debut	Seasons	PA	Offense	wOBA	FldRns	Fld/700PA	PosAdj	WAR	WAR/700PA
1955	4	1227	22	0.356	0	0	13	8	4.6

The fun thing about team lists like this, and part of the reason I'm only doing a top-10 list, is that you get players making your top-10 who only played for the Reds for a few years, sometimes as a reserve--but were really good players during their time. Burgess is our first example of this. He was a very good player over a long career, and ranks 27th among MLB catchers in WAR overall. He played four of those seasons with the Reds, and put up outstanding numbers despite serving as the reserve/platoon partner for C Ed Bailey during three of those four years. As a hitter, he hit for good power, fine average, and walking at twice the rate he struck out. His 0.356 wOBA (which is park- and era-adjusted) ranks 4th-best among Reds catchers with more than 50 PA's.

He is also one of just four catchers to be elected into the Reds Hall of Fame (curiously, Bailey is not one of them). How that happened is somewhat inexplicable to me. Chris Eckes of the Reds passed on a bit of info via Greg in Atlanta on this: Burgess was elected in 1975, his 4th year on the ballot, edging out deadball era one year wonder Cy Seymour by just 800 votes. Apparently, it was just a weak year!


8. Johnny Edwards.

Debut	Seasons	PA	Offense	wOBA	FldRns	Fld/700PA	PosAdj	WAR	WAR/700PA
1961	7	2624	-53	0.312	4	1	44	8.2	2.2

Edwards broke in with the Reds and played as their starting catcher for six seasons before losing his job to a rookie. I'm sure that stung, but at least he can take heart knowing now that the rookie would go on to become the best catcher in MLB history. For his part, though, Edwards was an average-fielding backstop who put up four decent seasons of performance from 1962-1965 before falling off a cliff in 1966. 1963 and 1965 were 3-WAR seasons, but he fell apart and posted -0.5 WAR seasons in '66 and '67. Hard to keep your job doing that. In his best year, Edwards hit 0.267/0.353/0.474, showing nice power in slugging 17 home runs. He was traded for Pat Corrales in 1968.

7. Ray Mueller.

Debut	Seasons	PA	Offense	wOBA	FldRns	Fld/700PA	PosAdj	WAR	WAR/700PA
1943	6	1864	2	0.336	9	3	16	9.2	3.5

Mueller is #7 on our list due to a pair of three-WAR seasons and one other decent season. He came to the Reds after missing the '41 & '42 seasons following his time with the Pirates (possibly military service? Anyone know?). He is best known for catching 233 consecutive games during the '43, '44, and '46 seasons for the Reds (he did miss 1945 while serving in the Army). Mueller had a little bit of power, but his best offensive asset was his ability to get on base. During his years with the Reds, Mueller walked as much as he struck out, which helped him post back to back seasons with ~a 0.350 OBP. Being incredibly durable, at least for a few seasons, didn't hurt either.

6. Tommy Clarke.

Debut	Seasons	PA	Offense	wOBA	FldRns	Fld/700PA	PosAdj	WAR	WAR/700PA
1909	9	1935	7	0.339	5	2	37	10.6	3.8

Clarke overlapped with Ivey Wingo during the second half of his tenure with the Reds, but Clarke spent almost his entire career with the Reds and posted above-average offensive performance over that time. As a late-dead ball era hitter, I have a hard time evaluating his individual strengths and weaknesses. But while Clarke didn't seem to have much if any power, he seems similar to Mueller in that he excelled at getting on base, posting a 0.351 career OBP. Also, if his BR Wiki page is any indication, he sounds like he was a pretty fiesty individual.

5. Heinie Peitz.

Debut	Seasons	PA	Offense	wOBA	FldRns	Fld/700PA	PosAdj	WAR	WAR/700PA
1896	9	2949	-11	0.331	18	4	42	14.2	3.4

Heinie is our only 1800's player in the top-10, and ranks as the 5th-most valuable catcher in Reds' history. He joined the Reds in a trade prior to the 1896 season, and went on to be their starting catcher until he was traded to the Pirates in 1905. Just shy of an average hitter and an apparently competant fielder, he played a lot during his career with the Reds, which is a big part of how he got to this spot on our list. He also played all over the diamond: most of his starts were at catcher, but he played first, second, third, and even pitched on a few occasions

4. Bubbles Hargrave. Reds Hall of Fame

Debut	Seasons	PA	Offense	wOBA	FldRns	Fld/700PA	PosAdj	WAR	WAR/700PA
1921	8	2605	75	0.368	2	1	23	18	4.8

The Reds have had some great names playing the two position: Ivey, Heinie, Smokey, Admiral...but no one can top Bubbles (though it was apparently a rather cruel nickname that referenced his stutter). But he was more than a name--he was an excellent ballplayer. Aside from Burgess, Hargrave is the first clearly above-average hitter on the list. He started behind the plate for 8 seasons following his arrival in 1921. Hargrave won a batting title in 1926, a season in which he posted a .406 OBP. But his best season was in 1923, when he hit 0.333/0.419/0.521, good for 4.6 wins above replacement. He received MVP consideration in three consecutive seasons from 1925-1927, and ended with a career line of 0.314/0.377/0.461 with the Reds.

3. Ed Bailey.

Debut	Seasons	PA	Offense	wOBA	FldRns	Fld/700PA	PosAdj	WAR	WAR/700PA
1953	9	2576	24	0.346	38	10	38	19.4	5.3

Bailey might not have been the hitter that Hargrave was, Bailey was an excellent fielder. In fact, on a per-PA (or inning played, if you like) basis, Bailey has better fielding numbers than any catcher in the top-25 Reds catcher list. Yes, that includes Johnny Bench. Bailey was also a fine hitter in his own right, with good power (28 HR in 1956) and strong on base skills, posting a career line (or close to it) of 0.261/0.359/0.438 with the Reds. Bailey was a 5-time All Star (4 with the Reds), so he clearly was recognized at the time as among the game' elite. Why isn't he in the Hall of Fame, despite his backup/platoon partner Smokey Burgess's membership? My guess is that it's bias against low-batting average players. More on Bailey below.

2. Ernie Lombardi. Reds Hall of Fame.

Debut	Seasons	PA	Offense	wOBA	FldRns	Fld/700PA	PosAdj	WAR	WAR/700PA
1932	10	4277	114	0.366	-16	-3	35	27.1	4.4

When Bubbles Hargrave left the team after the 1928 season, the Reds didn't have to wait long for their next great catcher. Lombardi arrived in 1932 and was heralded as one of the better hitters of his time. He was a two-time batting champion, including the 1938 season in which he was voted league MVP. He also played in seven all-star games and in two world series--the Reds won one of them (over DET in 1940). Lombardi had good power, routinely posting between 10 and 20 home runs each season. And he walked his share, while hitting for excellent average. But while he was an excellent hitter, both Hargrave and Bailey posted better WAR rates. What made Lombardi special is that on top of all of his other accomplishments, he played a ton during his 10 seasons with the Reds, at least by catcher standards. He played at least 107 games every year with the Reds (average=120), and averaged 420 PA's per year during that time. He ended up with almost 1000 more PA's than Ivey Wingo, who received the third-most PA's of a Reds catcher. Lombardi ranks 20th on the all-time list of MLB catchers.

1. Johnny Bench. Baseball Hall of Fame.

Debut	Seasons	PA	Offense	wOBA	FldRns	Fld/700PA	PosAdj	WAR	WAR/700PA
1967	17	8568	253	0.369	71	6	98	71.3	5.8

Surprise! Bench rates as the best catcher in MLB history, at least based on WAR. Here's what I wrote about him at BtB:

As a Reds fan I'm biased, but I think if you were to ask a large number of fans the name of the best catcher ever, Johnny Bench's name would be at the top of the poll. It's not a slam dunk, but Bench comes out four wins above Fisk--and Bench had 1200 fewer PA's and a much higher peak. Bench was a brilliant defender, but probably not the best defensive catcher of all time. And he was a superb hitter, but is probably not the best hitting catcher of all time. What sets him apart is that he was extremely good at both offense and defense: with game-changing defense and prodigious power, he redefined his position. No other catcher has ever hit 45 home runs in a season, and only one other Mike Piazza) has topped the 40-mark twice. He was Rookie of the Year, a two-time MVP (second only to Berra), a 14-time All Star (13 consecutive), and the winner of 10 consecutive gold gloves. He was the best of the best, and I'm proud that he played for my team...it's nice to be proud of something these days.

Graphics

Reds Catcher Timeline

Below is a graph of total WAR from Reds catchers (primary position only) since 1890. The line is a 10-year moving average.

Striking that since Bench retired, the Reds haven't had a long-term, quality catcher. Best year was 2005 with the LaRue/Valentin combo. Catcher is clearly a position at which the Reds have historically been strong, at least going back to Hargrave. Who will be the next great Reds catcher?

WAR Career Trajectory Graph

Here are the four Reds Hall of Fame catchers, plus Ed Bailey.

Bench was obviously the best, but the most interesting thing to me about this graph is the Bailey/Lombardi comparison. Lombardi was much more productive over his full career. But during their best five seasons, Bailey was probably Lombardi's equal. Bailey should be in the Reds Hall of Fame, at least by my judgment.

Top-25 Reds Catchers, by WAR

Table is sortable--click on the header by which you wish to sort!

Rank	Name	Debut	Seasons	PA	Offense	wOBA	FldRns	Fld/700PA	PosAdj	WAR	WAR/700PA
1	Bench, Johnny	1967	17	8568	253	0.369	71	6	98	71.3	5.8
2	Lombardi, Ernie	1932	10	4277	114	0.366	-16	-3	35	27.1	4.4
3	Bailey, Ed	1953	9	2576	24	0.346	38	10	38	19.4	5.3
4	Hargrave, Bubbles	1921	8	2605	75	0.368	2	1	23	18	4.8
5	Peitz, Heinie	1896	9	2949	-11	0.331	18	4	42	14.2	3.4
6	Clarke, Tommy	1909	9	1935	7	0.339	5	2	37	10.6	3.8
7	Mueller, Ray	1943	6	1864	2	0.336	9	3	16	9.2	3.5
8	Edwards, Johnny	1961	7	2624	-53	0.312	4	1	44	8.2	2.2
9	Burgess, Smoky	1955	4	1227	22	0.356	0	0	13	8	4.6
10	Wingo, Ivey	1915	13	3302	-63	0.313	-5	-1	48	7.3	1.5
11	Vaughn, Farmer	1892	8	2585	-52	0.312	9	2	22	6.7	1.8
12	LaRue, Jason	1999	8	2516	-59	0.308	7	2	42	6.2	1.7
13	McLean, Larry	1906	7	2251	-47	0.311	8	2	36	6	1.9
14	Seminick, Andy	1952	4	1122	-4	0.331	5	3	10	5	3.1
15	Taubensee, Eddie	1994	7	2291	7	0.339	-57	-17	31	4.8	1.5
16	Pavletich, Don	1957	9	1206	13	0.347	-18	-10	6	4.4	2.6
17	Schlei, Admiral	1904	5	1675	-33	0.312	2	1	27	4.2	1.8
18	Diaz, Bo	1985	5	1672	-53	0.299	21	9	26	4.1	1.7
19	Oliver, Joe	1989	8	2598	-87	0.296	10	3	43	3.5	0.9
20	Ross, Dave	2006	3	795	-14	0.315	10	9	14	3.3	2.9
21	Lamanno, Ray	1941	5	1536	-40	0.305	1	0	13	2.6	1.2
22	Wood, Bob	1898	3	492	7	0.351	-3	-4	7	2.6	3.7
23	Campbell, Gilly	1935	3	585	2	0.339	-1	-1	5	2.4	2.9
24	Picinich, Val	1926	3	810	-8	0.324	0	0	8	2.4	2.1
25	Hershberger, Willard	1938	3	427	2	0.34	0	0	4	2	3.3

Next up: First Basemen!

Update (9/15/09): I regret that I mistakenly neglected to include Reds teams prior to 1890 in the above analysis. As a result, some players were mistakenly omitted, though it did not affect rankings among the top-10. Players in the top-25 should have also included Pop Snyder (5 seasons, 6.8 WAR), Deacon White (3 seasons, but 6.2 WAR), and Jim Keenan (7 seasons, 5.7 WAR)