During Sunday’s rain-out of the Mets-Yankees game, ESPN broadcast a program taped in 1995, IIRC, in which Ted Williams named his top 20 hitters of all time. It took place at his museum in Florida, and he prefaced the ceremony by saying that his staff had researched statistics and come up with a formula for determining who the greatest hitters in the game were.
In some cases it was easy to see why that player was chosen. Cobb, Hornsby, Mantle, Ruth, Aaron - we could have guessed these guys would be there. I was a little surprised to see Ralph Kiner’s name, but I figured he benefited from whatever formula they used. Nothing against Kiner, but I was surprised that he was in the top 20.
Conspicuous by his absence on the list was Williams himself. Frankly, I would have chosen Williams over Kiner. This raises a few questions. What was the formula, and how does Teddy Ballgame stack up based on that? Did Williams exempt himself? If so (and it seems real inconsistent with Ted’s justifiable pride in his accomplishments), then why would a legitimate Hall of Famer include Joe Jackson, who was banned from MLB, and not include himself?
I tried a couple of searches, but could not find anything that mentions Williams’ list of top 20 hitters. Can anyone besides the Mighty Cecil himself shed some light on this?
It seems odd that any formula for judging great hitters could overlook a lifetime batting average of .347. My first guess is that Williams excluded himself out of modesty.
That’s so weird that I’ll bet you a dollar he excluded himself. Most of the time he is acknowledged to be THE greatest of all time so for him not to be included on the top 20 list means that their formula was on crack or excluded Ted.
I don’t know why he would exclude himself. It was probably an executive decision by ESPN because Ted was not known for modesty. When he managed Washington he would take batting practice and before each pitch he would mutter"I am Ted F*****g Williams and I am the greatest hitter ever" : WHACK.
This was reported in “Ball Four” by Jim Bouton. I would definitely put Ted in the top 5. He had a combination of power, average and walks that would be hard to beat. Don’t forget he missed most of his prime when fought in the Korean War. If they left him out because of their formula then obviously the formula sucks.
Keith
I’ve read quite a few articles by Williams naming his Best Ten Hitters or The Best Hitters I Ever Saw over the years; every couple of years some hack journalist will hit him up for his opinions. I’ve never seen Williams name himself; he always excludes himself. I guess he figures, with his considerable ego, that he’s so great it goes without saying he’s great (and to be honest, he’s absolutely right.)
ESPN didn’t commission the list, AFAIK. Williams’ opening remarks made it sound as though he, through the auspices of his museum, commissioned it. He made it clear that it was to inaugurate the hitter’s wing of the museum, or some such thing.
Perhaps he exempted himself so it wouldn’t look as if the whole thing had been done just to pump himself up (“Hey, we figured out who the top 20 hitters in history are, and guess what, sonofagun, I’M ONE OF 'EM!!”). I especially figured, since they figured in all trips to first base, thus counting walks, that Williams would be in the top 5. He walked almost as many times as he got a hit!
I would love to see the criteria, how they put the numbers all together, and where Williams rates. Such false modesty is unbecoming. There simply can’t be any debate that he ranks up there with the absolute best, so why pretend?
Where can I get a look at the formula and the standings? I have a Baseball Encyclopedia, so I can figure the formula out for Williams and anyone else on the list.
I know at least one formula, about twenty years ago, that rated Williams #1. If the Williams museum did that – even if it was a legitimate calculation – the outcry would be “fix!” They probably thought it better to leave him out and not raise a controversy.
Remember, any calculation of this nature is subjective and can be tweaked any way you want. It is wide open to manipulation. Better to leave Williams out than to get into a controversy over how the formula was set up, etc.
Williams must have excluded himself, and modesty would be inconsistent with his personality as we know it.
But he must have–otherwise, I’d go so far as to say that his absence alone would render this list laughable.
Williams is EASILY top 5, and, hell, you could absolutely make a case for #1. He lost a LOT of time to the wars and some of it was in what would have been the prime of his career. He had everything you wanted in an offense player except speed: batting average, power and walks.
I think the answer is evident as suggested by other posters. He considers himself to be the greatest hitter of all time (and perhaps he is I’m not baseball maven) and this is his dry little joke. He is making himself conspicious by his omission.
Ted Williams picked the top 20 hitters of all time based on his own secret formula. They are;[ul]
20 Ralph Kiner
19 Mike Schmidt
18 Frank Robinson
17 Harry Heilmann
16 Mel Ott
15 Johnny Mize
14 Al Simmons
13 Tris Speaker
12 Mickey Mantle
11 Hank Greenberg
10 Willie Mays
9 Hank Aaron
8 Joe Jackson
7 Stan Musial
6 Ty Cobb
5 Joe DiMaggio
4 Rogers Hornsby
3 Jimmie Foxx
2 Lou Gehrig
1 Babe Ruth [/ul]
The Wall Street Journal does this kind of ranking of athletes in its Weekend Edition on Fridays using its “Mad Max” computer. I don’t remember if they’ve had a “best hitter” ranking yet.
That website says Williams ranked those players using his own secret formula, “a combination of on base percentage and slugging average.” Williams has both better OBA and SLG than Gehrig, who is second on the list (wait, there is some disagreement about what Williams slugging average is…that website lists it as .619 but it must be at least .634) so no matter how you combine them, Williams would be second on the list–Ruth beats Williams in both categories. Maybe Ted Williams just didn’t want to be second on any list, even his own!
In the November 14, 1994 Sporting News, Ted’s list is presented. Interestingly, the accompanying article has this:
Lefty O’Doul had better OBA and SLG than, for instance, Harry Heilmann (17th on the list), but O’Doul doesn’t appear in the batting average leaders, even with a .349, because he spent half his career as a pitcher and only batted 3264 times–‘course his pitching stats were only just a tad better than Williams’.
From the 6th edition of The Baseball Encyclopedia, O’Doul lifetime was 1-1 with 4.87 ERA and 77.2 IP over 34 games. With 803 OF games under his belt it’s a little misleading to say he spent half his career as a pitcher. By comparison, Teddy was 0-0, 4, 2 IP, 1 game.
I don’t know if the Splendid Splinter, aka Teddy Ballgame, aka The Kid, bothered to consider effects like the era the player was in, what park he played in, etc.
It’s clear that Williams has a predilection for power hitters and doesn’t buy into the all the Pete Rose crap. (Sorry editorial comment. Must make derogatory Pete Rose statements. Can’t help myself.)
There were no active players on Williams’ list, but if he updated it, there’s a good chance players like Bonds, Thomas, and McGwire would be on the list.
A side note: Lefty O’Doul’s pitching stats are really skewed for the number of innings he pitched because I believe that in one game, his manager was pissed at him and left him to give up some obscene number of runs (like 15) in a few innings.
O’Doul pitched 34 games over 4 years, 23 coming in one year alone, 1923. From 1928-34 he appeared in 801 games as an OF. 34 games to 801, 4 years to 7. That’s why I said that saying ‘he spent half of his career as a pitcher’ is misleading.
But I’ll give you an out. O’Doul was not in MLB from 1924-27. I don’t have the reference but I’m fairly certain he spent that time with the San Francisco Seals in the PCL. O’Doul was a hometown boy and for many years after his playing career fronted a popular restaurant there.
I am perfectly willing to believe he spent those 4 years solely as a pitcher.
Perhaps, or that may have been part of the formula. I’m sure slugging percentage and RBI had quite a lot to do with it. But the fact that the list includes Brooks Robinson and Ty Cobb sorta discredits the notion. Different eras, but not power hitters. Nor were Heilmann and Hornsby.
This is why I was so interested in the actual formula and criteria used to make the list. You have to wonder why players such as George Brett and Rod Carew were left off the list.
I was left with the impression that the formula went solely by the numbers, and not by some ineffable, insubstantial thing such as playing on so many championship teams or simply being one of the most popular players of a certain decade.
But what are those numbers, and how do they impact the list?
Oh geez, I forgot I was talking baseball. My use of the phrase “first half of his career” was only in the approximate sense, rather than the baseball sense. Sorry about that. My comment was mostly about the fact that until he was 31, his major league stats were as a pitcher.
On the other hand, I wasn’t as bad as you make me look. Pitcher games can never be compared against outfielder games directly, so the number of years is most relevant. His last year was more a half year, and those pitching years obviously include 1921 (he pitched in the majors in 1920 and 1922), so it’s more like 5 years to 6 1/2 or 7, pretty close to half. But I’ll never make that mistake again.
If we consider O’Doul’s career to include minor league experience, then we’re both wrong.
In 1918 he was 12-8 with the Seals.
From 1919-20 he was a sore-armed pitcher with the Yanks.
Back in SF in 1921 he went 25-9.
Back to the Yanks in 1922, sore-armed again.
To the Red Sox in 1923, when he got his only 2 decisions in the majors. Then his arm went dead for good.
O’Doul tried to rehab his arm but it was easier hitting the ball than throwing it. From 1924-27 in the PCL with Salt Lake, Holywood, and SF he hit for average and power, so he was in the bigs again in 1928, playing until 1934.
Then his real career took hold. From 1935-1951 he managed the SF Seals. He also managed PCL teams in 1952-54 (San Diego), 1955-56 (Oakland/Vancouver) and 1957 (Seattle).
O’Doul made many trips to Japan to promote the game (and line his own pockets of course) in the 30’s and after WWII.
His last appearance in a game was in 1956, at age 59, when he singled as a pinch-hitter for the Vancouver Mounties.
The Giants’ new home, PacBell Park, is built on land directly adjacent to the Lefty O’Doul Bridge, fronting on San Francisco Bay.