Is Jeter Worth It?

Rumor has it that the Yankees have offered Derek Jeter a three-year contract worth $45 million. The annual rate of $15 million would be a comedown from Jeter's 2010 pay of $22.6 million (source), but in terms of on-field performance, Jeter would be grossly overpaid. And he wants to be more grossly overpaid, of course.

Let's look at Jeter's value to the Yankees since 1996, the first year for which his salary is known:

						OPS+ per
Year	Age	OPS+		Salary		$10 mn
1996	22	101		$130,000		0.07769
1997	23	103		$550,000		0.01873
1998	24	127		$750,000		0.01693
1999	25	153		$5,000,000		0.00306
2000	26	128		$10,000,000		0.00128
2001	27	123		$12,600,000		0.00098
2002	28	111		$14,600,000		0.00076
2003	29	125		$15,600,000		0.00080
2004	30	114		$18,600,000		0.00061
2005	31	125		$19,600,000		0.00064
2006	32	132		$20,600,000		0.00064
2007	33	121		$21,600,000		0.00056
2008	34	102		$21,600,000		0.00047
2009	35	125		$21,600,000		0.00058
2010	36	90		$22,600,000		0.00040
		119		$205,430,000		0.00087

OPS+ is a measure of offensive performance. It is on-base percentage plus slugging average (OPS) adjusted for year and ballpark. An OPS+ of 100 represents the average for the league and year.

Jeter's on-field value to the Yankees, as an offensive player, peaked in 1999, when his OPS+ reached a career-high 153. His OPS+ per $10 million of salary in that year was 0.00306. It has been all downhill since, both in terms of OPS+ (though there have been some good years since 1999) and OPS+ per $10 million of salary. The latter figure dwindled to 0.00040 in 2010, when Jeter's OPS+ fell to 90, that is, 90 percent of the league average.

It is only reasonable to assume that Jeter's productivity will decline further from its peak, even if he recovers somewhat from the 2010's unusually weak performance. Even at $15 million per season, Jeter will be an over-priced commodity, given his likely on-field performance.

So, if Jeter is worth $15 million a year, or more, it's only because of his leadership qualities (which can't be measured) and his draw as a symbol of Yankee greatness. I suspect that Jeter's leadership qualities will not be enough to reverse the Yankees' evident decline. Further, that decline will more than offset whatever value Jeter has at the box office.

I look forward, with sadness, to some relatively lean years in the Bronx, and to buyer's remorse on the part of the Yankees if they settle with Jeter for much more than $15 million a season.

More about the Quality of Films

In "The Quality of Films over the Decades," I compare my ratings of 1,900-plus feature films with the ratings given those same films by IMDb users:


An obvious reason for the difference is that many IMDb users, unlike me, have a strong taste for films of the 1940s through the mid-1970s. I, on the other hand, generally prefer the films of 1932-1942 (the "Golden Age") to what has been produced since. (My high marks for films of 1920-1931 are based on small samples, and should be ignored for purposes of this discussion.)

It is evident, however, that I am in step with IMDb users with regard to the average quality of films produced from 1975 to 1995. I am less enthusiastic than IMDb users about the output of the last 15 years. (The jump in my ratings for 2009-2010 reflects limited viewing.)

That I am selective in what I choose to view is born out by the following graph:

The blue bars denote the ratings given by IMDb viewers to some 113,000 feature films. The average rating assigned to all of those films is 5.8, in contrast with the 7.1 assigned by IMDb users to films I've rated (my average rating, 6.8). The distribution of the red and green bars, relative to the blue ones, attests to my selectivity in choosing films to watch.

It is the difference between the red bars and the green bars that I find most interesting. Because of my selective viewing habits, I have given ratings of 8, 9, or 10 to 13 percent of the films I've rated; whereas, IMDb users apply ratings of 8, 9, or 10 to less than 6 percent of the same features. The picture then changes. I am less generous with ratings between 5 and 7, and more willing to apply ratings below 5.

It gives me solace, for two reasons, to know that the average rating for all feature films at IMDb is only 5.8. First, it means that I haven't missed much by being selective. Second, it means that the average viewer (at least the ones who rate films at IMDb) is willing and able (at least somewhat) to tell what's good, what's bad, and what's indifferent.

Finally, there's a good reason for being selective: It prevents a sad waste of time. If the average length of the 113,000 features rated at IMDb is 105 minutes (1.75 hours), it would take about 100 years (at five hours a day, five days a week) to watch every film all the way through. That's a lot of popcorn.

The American League's Greatest Hitters: Part II

UPDATED 12/08/11

When last seen, the best of the American League's greatest hitters were:

Adjusted	Nominal	Player	Years in AL		Batting average		% change	# change
rank*	rank	(all-caps, Hall of Fame;	From	To	Nominal	Adjusted	in BA	in rank
		* indicates active)
1	12	Ichiro Suzuki*	2001	2010	.331	.353	6.2%	11
2	1	TY COBB	1905	1928	.366	.353	-3.9%	-1
3	2	Shoeless Joe Jackson	1908	1920	.356	.351	-1.3%	-1
4	10	NAP LAJOIE	1901	1916	.336	.333	-0.9%	6
5	3	TRIS SPEAKER	1907	1928	.345	.331	-4.0%	-2
6	16	ROD CAREW	1967	1985	.328	.331	0.9%	10
7	11	EDDIE COLLINS	1906	1930	.333	.326	-2.2%	4
8	6	BABE RUTH	1914	1934	.343	.324	-6.1%	-2
9	8	LOU GEHRIG	1923	1939	.340	.323	-5.4%	-1
10	18	JOE DIMAGGIO	1936	1951	.325	.322	-0.7%	8
11	4	TED WILLIAMS	1939	1960	.344	.319	-7.9%	-7
12	15	WADE BOGGS	1982	1999	.328	.319	-2.8%	3

I left the earlier post hanging on the question of how the top hitters would compare when their batting averages were adjusted further, for age. I now have some of the answers.

To get the answers, I quantified the relationship between adjusted batting average and age for the 120 hitters considered in the earlier post. (As a reminder, those hitters attained nominal lifetime averages of .285 or better in at least 5,000 plate appearances in the American League. Their averages take into account long-term and year-to-year changes in playing conditions, as well as differences among ballparks at a give time and over time.) Here is the relationship, in graphical form:


I used the equation shown on the graph to adjust each hitter's annual batting average according to the age at which he attained the average. If the "normal" hitter peaks at 28, as the equation suggests, averages attained before and after the age of 28 are "understated." That is, if a player hits .300 at the age of 20, that's equivalent to hitting .315 at the age of 28; and if a player hits .300 at the age of 40, that's equivalent to hitting .341 at the age of 28.

My analysis of age-adjusted batting average has yielded two key findings, thus far. The first finding, which is captured in the following graph and its accompanying table, is that the top averages for ages 18-41 were accomplished by just seven different players. This graph compares the year-by-year, age-adjusted averages for each of the seven players:


For ease of viewing, I omitted the five players (Speaker, Carew, Collins, Ruth, and Gehrig) who never hold the top spot at any age, despite their impressive career averages. The top hitters at each age are as follows:

		Age-adjusted
Age	Player	BA
18	Cobb	.267
19	Cobb	.336
20	Cobb	.369
21	Jackson	.392
22	Cobb	.395
23	Cobb	.399
24	Cobb	.387
25	Cobb	.397
26	Cobb	.391
27	Cobb	.380
28	Cobb	.379
29	Lajoie	.383
30	Cobb	.396
31	Cobb	.387
32	Cobb	.369
33	Suzuki	.377
34	DiMaggio	.362
35	Lajoie	.414
36	Suzuki	.364
37	Lajoie	.373
38	Williams	.398
39	Williams	.343
40	Cobb	.357
41	Boggs	.343

Given that information, it shouldn't surprise you to learn that Ty Cobb returns to the top of the heap when his single-season averages are age-adjusted, and weighted by his at-bats in each season, to obtain an age-adjusted lifetime average. Here is the age-adjusted list of top-12 career batting averages:

	Batter	Age-adjusted career BA
1	Ty Cobb	.3639
2	Shoeless Joe Jackson	.3559
3	Ichiro Suzuki*	.3582
4	Nap Lajoie	.3405
5	Tris Speaker	.3313
6	Rod Carew	.3307
7	Ted Williams	.3306
8	Eddie Collins	.3258
9	Babe Ruth	.3236
10	Lou Gehrig	.3228
11	Joe DiMaggio	.3223
12	Wade Boggs	.3190
	* Through 2010 season; before .272 average in 2011 reduced career BA by .0054.

I have not extended my analysis to include the 2011 season, but it is clear that Suzuki now belongs in 3rd place. The loss of .0054 from his nominal career BA in 2011 is far greater than his age-adjusted lead (.0023) over Jackson through 2010.

The Quality of Films over the Decades

I have written before about my judgment of the quality of films in various eras. In 2007, I characterized the eras from 1933 to then as follows:

• the Golden Age (1933-1942) -- 179 films seen, 96 favorites (54 percent)

• the Abysmal Years (1943-1965) -- 317 films seen, 98 favorites (31 percent)

• the Vile Years (1966-present) -- 1,496 films seen, 359 favorites (24 percent)

Favorites are films that I have rated 8, 9, or 10 on IMDb's 10-point scale.

I offered the following explanation for what I saw as a steady decline in quality after 1942:

• The Golden Age had deployed all of the themes that could be used without explicit sex, graphic violence, and crude profanity -- none of which become an option for American movie-makers until the mid-1960s.

• Prejudice got significantly more play after World War II, but it's a theme that can't be used very often without boring audiences.

• Other attempts at realism (including film noir) resulted mainly in a lot of turgid trash laden with unrealistic dialogue and shrill emoting -- keynotes of the Abysmal Years.
  

• Hollywood productions sank to the level of TV, apparently in a misguided effort to compete with that medium. The garish technicolor productions of the 1950s often highlighted the unnatural neatness and cleanliness of settings that should have been rustic if not squalid.

• The transition from abysmal to vile coincided with the cultural "liberation" of the mid-1960s, which saw the advent of the "f" word in mainstream films. Yes, the Vile Years have brought us more more realistic plots and better acting (thanks mainly to the Brits). But none of that compensates for the anti-social rot that set in around 1966: drug-taking, drinking and smoking are glamorous; profanity proliferates to the point of annoyance; sex is all about lust and little about love; violence is gratuitous and beyond the point of nausea; corporations and white, male Americans with money are evil; the U.S. government (when Republican-controlled) is in thrall to that evil; etc., etc. etc.

How do things look now? About the same, on the whole, after another look at my ratings, which now extend into 2010.

I compared my ratings of individual movies with the ratings given the same movies by hundreds, thousands, and (sometimes) tens of thousands of viewers. Here's how our ratings compare, year by year and overall, from 1920 through 2010:


I'm not surprised that my ratings, on average, are lower than those of other viewers, on average. Assuming that the difference is merely a matter of tough grading on my part, I scaled up my ratings so that my overall average is the same as that of others who rated the same films. The result:


The band of vertical bars across the middle of the graph indicates the normal range of the annual ratings. Points above the vertical bands are in the upper 1/6 of my ratings; points below the vertical bands are in the bottom 1/6 of my ratings.

I find it a bit shocking to see that there is a period during the vile years with normalized ratings above 100 percent of the IMDb average, specifically, 1978 through 1997. On the other hand, the first graph shows that I considered the films of that period generally inferior to the films of earlier periods. Moreover, going back to the first graph, it is evident that there was a consensus (of which I was part) about the vileness of the Vile Years (give or take a few of them).

So, I will stick to my guns, with one amendment -- the Golden Age began in 1932:

• the Golden Age (1932-1942) -- 184 films rated, 110 favorites (60 percent)

• the Abysmal Years (1943-1965) -- 284 films rated, 107 favorites (41 percent)

• the Vile Years (1966-present) -- 1,425 films rated, 416 favorites (29 percent)

Will movies ever get better? Only time -- and a lot of movie-viewing -- will tell.

The American League's Greatest Hitters

 SUPERSEDED BY "THE AMERICAN LEAGUE'S GREATEST HITTERS: III"

Through a painstaking series of adjustments for changes in playing standards and conditions, and for differences among ballparks, I have reassessed the single-season and career batting averages of the American League's top hitters. The reassessment covers 120 players whose career average in the American League is at least .285 in at least 5,000 plate appearances.

I will devote a future post to a detailed explanation of the adjustments. In this post, I give an overview of the adjustments and present a revised ranking of the 120 players. I also discuss -- but do not adjust for -- the effects of age on the revised batting averages and relative standing of players.

I make three kinds of adjustments to nominal (official) BA. One adjustment is a time constant, which captures gradual changes from 1901 to the present that have worked against batters. Such changes would be the improvement of fielding gloves (which have made it harder to get hits, while also raising fielding averages), the introduction of night baseball, and the gradual increase in proportion of games played at night.

A second adjustment is an annual factor that captures the up-and-down swings in the relative difficulty of hitting. These swings have occurred because of changes in the ball, the frequency of its replacement, the size of the strike zone, and the height of the pitching mound, and perhaps other factors.

A third adjustment -- one that is unique to each team-park combination -- reflects the relative ease or difficulty of hitting in the various parks that have been used in the American League. In many cases the adjustment factor for a given park changes during the years of its use because of significant changes in the dimensions of the field.

The following graph combines the effects of the first two adjustments into a single number for each season. A value greater than 1 means that each hitter's nominal average for that season was increased to some degree. A value less than 1 means that each hitter's average for that season was decreased to some degree.


The largest upward adjustments affect averages compiled in the "deadball" years of 1902-1909 and 1913-1916, and in the "era of the pitcher," from 1962 through 1975. The largest downward adjustments affect averages compiled in the first two years of the AL's existence and the "lively" ball era, which -- judging from the numbers -- began in 1919 and lasted through 1938.

The final adjustments -- for differences in parks -- range widely. For example, Red Sox hiiters (including Ted Williams) suffered a penalty of 5.9 percent for the 1934-2010 seasons, when Fenway Park acquired its present dimensions. By contrast, Yankees who played in the original Yankee Stadium from 1923 through 1973 earned a boost of 4 percent because the original park (despite its short foul lines) was inimical to batters (including Joe DiMaggio).

The following graph captures the total effect of the three adjustments. Each point represents one of the 120 hitters.

The pattern, which the curved line emphasizes, is consistent with the adjustments summarized in the first graph. The points don't fall neatly on the curved line for three reasons: (1) variations in the length of players' careers, (2) variations in the numbers of at-bats across seasons (and thus in the weight attached to a season in compiling a career average), and (3) the park-adjustment factor, which varies widely from park to park and (sometimes) for a particular park, if its configuration changed significantly.

How did the various adjustments affect the rankings? First, as would be expected because of the inflation of batting averages in the 1920s and 1930s, those decades are over-represented among the 120 hitters, as shown in the following table. ("Median year" refers to the decade in which a player's median year occurs. For example, Ty Cobb's career spanned 1905-1928, so he is counted as a member of the 1911-1920 decade in the following table and the one after it.)

Distribution of Hitters, by Decade
	Median year	Number	Percent
	1901-1910	2	1.7%
	1911-1920	7	5.8%
	1921-1930	17	14.2%
	1931-1940	21	17.5%
	1941-1950	8	6.7%
	1951-1960	8	6.7%
	1961-1970	3	2.5%
	1971-1980	8	6.7%
	1981-1990	10	8.3%
	1991-2000	22	18.3%
	2001-2010	14	11.7%
		120	100%

The adjustments to nominal batting averages did a good job of rectifying the bias toward players of the 1920s and 1930s:

	Average Rank, by Decade
	Median year	Nominal	Adjusted	Change*
	1901-1910	28	17	11
	1911-1920	22	23	-1
	1921-1930	29	65	-36
	1931-1940	44	83	-39
	1941-1950	60	63	-3
	1951-1960	84	54	30
	1961-1970	83	43	40
	1971-1980	86	49	37
	1981-1990	79	52	27
	1991-2000	79	64	15
	2001-2010	58	79	-21
	* Positive number represents improvement (higher average rank); negative number represents slippage (lower average rank).

Until someone convinces me otherwise, I conclude that the top hitters of the "deadball" era really were great by comparison with those who came later. They are not alone at the top, however. Among the top 10 in the following table are a contemporary player (Ichiro Suzuki), a player of recent memory (Rod Carew), and three Yankees who enjoyed great years in the 1920s and 1930s (Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, and Joe DiMaggio). Here, then, are all 120 hitters, listed in the order of adjusted rank:

Adjusted	Nominal	Player	Years in AL		Batting average		% change	# change
rank*	rank	(all-caps = Hall of Fame; asterisk =	From	To	Nominal	Adjusted	in BA	in rank
		active)
1	12	Ichiro Suzuki*	2001	2010	.331	.353	6.2%	11
2	1	TY COBB	1905	1928	.366	.353	-3.9%	-1
3	2	Shoeless Joe Jackson	1908	1920	.356	.351	-1.3%	-1
4	10	NAP LAJOIE	1901	1916	.336	.333	-0.9%	6
5	3	TRIS SPEAKER	1907	1928	.345	.331	-4.0%	-2
6	16	ROD CAREW	1967	1985	.328	.331	0.9%	10
7	11	EDDIE COLLINS	1906	1930	.333	.326	-2.2%	4
8	6	BABE RUTH	1914	1934	.343	.324	-6.1%	-2
9	8	LOU GEHRIG	1923	1939	.340	.323	-5.4%	-1
10	18	JOE DIMAGGIO	1936	1951	.325	.322	-0.7%	8
11	4	TED WILLIAMS	1939	1960	.344	.319	-7.9%	-7
12	15	WADE BOGGS	1982	1999	.328	.319	-2.8%	3
13	47	Don Mattingly	1982	1995	.307	.318	3.3%	34
14	74	MICKEY MANTLE	1951	1968	.298	.317	6.0%	60
15	7	HARRY HEILMANN	1914	1929	.342	.315	-8.9%	-8
16	30	Derek Jeter*	1995	2010	.314	.314	0.1%	14
17	5	GEORGE SISLER	1915	1928	.344	.313	-9.8%	-12
18	36	Edgar Martinez	1987	2004	.312	.312	0.1%	18
19	25	KIRBY PUCKETT	1984	1995	.318	.311	-2.1%	6
20	89	EDDIE MURRAY	1977	1997	.295	.311	5.1%	69
21	99	Thurman Munson	1969	1979	.292	.310	6.1%	78
22	53	PAUL MOLITOR	1978	1998	.306	.310	1.2%	31
23	35	Magglio Ordonez*	1997	2010	.312	.310	-0.6%	12
24	31	Harvey Kuenn	1952	1960	.313	.309	-1.4%	7
25	44	Roberto Alomar	1991	2004	.309	.308	-0.4%	19
26	9	AL SIMMONS	1924	1944	.337	.308	-9.3%	-17
27	17	EARLE COMBS	1924	1935	.325	.308	-5.6%	-10
28	68	Minnie Minoso	1949	1964	.300	.307	2.4%	40
29	70	Joe Judge	1915	1934	.299	.307	2.7%	41
30	45	SAM CRAWFORD	1903	1917	.309	.307	-0.5%	15
31	55	Tony Oliva	1962	1976	.304	.307	0.7%	24
32	92	Mickey Rivers	1970	1984	.295	.306	3.7%	60
33	38	Baby Doll Jacobson	1915	1927	.311	.305	-1.9%	5
34	83	Carl Crawford*	2002	2010	.296	.305	2.8%	49
35	67	Julio Franco	1983	1999	.301	.304	1.3%	32
36	54	GEORGE BRETT	1973	1993	.305	.304	-0.3%	18
37	56	Paul O'Neill	1993	2001	.303	.304	0.1%	19
38	48	HOME RUN BAKER	1908	1922	.307	.303	-1.2%	10
39	72	Cecil Cooper	1971	1987	.298	.303	1.7%	33
40	20	SAM RICE	1915	1934	.322	.303	-6.2%	-20
41	14	HEINIE MANUSH	1923	1936	.331	.303	-9.1%	-27
42	32	BILL DICKEY	1928	1946	.313	.303	-3.3%	-10
43	101	Lou Piniella	1964	1984	.291	.302	3.9%	58
44	29	Cecil Travis	1933	1947	.314	.302	-3.9%	-15
45	103	Carney Lansford	1978	1992	.290	.302	4.1%	58
46	41	LUKE APPLING	1930	1950	.310	.302	-2.8%	-5
47	50	Stuffy McInnis	1909	1922	.307	.302	-1.7%	3
48	114	Bill Skowron	1954	1967	.286	.301	5.2%	66
49	98	Luis Polonia	1987	2000	.292	.301	3.0%	49
50	84	Garret Anderson	1994	2008	.296	.301	1.5%	34
51	79	AL KALINE	1953	1974	.297	.300	0.9%	28
52	52	GEORGE KELL	1943	1957	.306	.300	-2.2%	0
53	34	Manny Ramirez*	1993	2010	.312	.300	-4.1%	-19
54	81	Bernie Williams	1991	2006	.297	.299	0.7%	27
55	64	Frank Thomas	1990	2008	.301	.299	-0.8%	9
56	13	JIMMIE FOXX	1925	1942	.331	.298	-11.1%	-43
57	97	Mike Hargrove	1974	1985	.292	.298	1.8%	40
58	42	Bobby Veach	1912	1925	.310	.298	-4.2%	-16
59	60	Alex Rodriguez*	1994	2010	.303	.297	-2.0%	1
60	91	Kevin Seitzer	1986	1997	.295	.297	0.6%	31
61	105	John Olerud	1989	2005	.289	.297	2.5%	44
62	102	NELLIE FOX	1947	1963	.290	.297	2.2%	40
63	107	Wally Joyner	1986	2001	.289	.296	2.4%	44
64	104	Harold Baines	1980	2001	.289	.296	2.2%	40
65	112	Carlos Guillen*	1998	2010	.286	.296	3.2%	47
66	116	ROBIN YOUNT	1974	1993	.285	.295	3.4%	50
67	119	Gene Woodling	1946	1962	.284	.295	3.6%	52
68	90	LOU BOUDREAU	1938	1952	.295	.294	-0.3%	22
69	111	Raul Ibanez	1996	2008	.286	.294	2.8%	42
70	120	YOGI BERRA	1946	1963	.284	.294	3.5%	50
71	86	Kenny Lofton	1992	2007	.296	.293	-1.0%	15
72	23	HANK GREENBERG	1930	1946	.319	.293	-8.8%	-49
73	93	Albert Belle	1989	2000	.295	.293	-0.8%	20
74	94	Pete Runnels	1951	1962	.294	.292	-0.7%	20
75	82	Shannon Stewart	1995	2008	.297	.292	-1.5%	7
76	66	Ivan Rodriguez	1991	2009	.301	.292	-3.0%	-10
77	110	Mickey Vernon	1939	1958	.287	.292	1.8%	33
78	95	Hal McRae	1973	1987	.293	.292	-0.4%	17
79	96	Tony Fernandez	1983	2001	.293	.292	-0.4%	17
80	115	Miguel Tejada*	1997	2010	.286	.292	2.0%	35
81	22	MICKEY COCHRANE	1925	1937	.320	.291	-10.0%	-59
82	78	Mike Sweeney	1995	2010	.298	.291	-2.4%	-4
83	21	CHARLIE GEHRINGER	1924	1942	.320	.290	-10.5%	-62
84	80	Buddy Lewis	1935	1949	.297	.290	-2.5%	-4
85	49	George Burns	1914	1929	.307	.289	-6.2%	-36
86	26	GOOSE GOSLIN	1921	1938	.316	.289	-9.4%	-60
87	58	Mike Greenwell	1985	1996	.303	.288	-5.1%	-29
88	51	Johnny Pesky	1942	1954	.307	.287	-6.7%	-37
89	24	EARL AVERILL	1929	1940	.318	.287	-10.8%	-65
90	88	Juan Gonzalez	1989	2005	.295	.287	-3.0%	-2
91	43	John Stone	1928	1938	.310	.287	-8.0%	-48
92	19	Ken Williams	1918	1929	.324	.286	-13.1%	-73
93	100	Ken Griffey	1989	2010	.291	.286	-1.8%	7
94	65	Billy Goodman	1947	1961	.301	.286	-5.2%	-29
95	28	Bibb Falk	1920	1931	.314	.286	-10.0%	-67
96	113	Willie Wilson	1976	1992	.286	.286	0.0%	17
97	108	Rafael Palmeiro	1989	2005	.288	.285	-0.8%	11
98	59	Buddy Myer	1925	1941	.303	.285	-6.1%	-39
99	69	Michael Young*	2000	2010	.300	.285	-5.3%	-30
100	73	JIM RICE	1974	1989	.298	.285	-4.6%	-27
101	39	Bob Meusel	1920	1929	.311	.285	-9.2%	-62
102	46	Gee Walker	1931	1941	.307	.283	-8.6%	-56
103	62	Ben Chapman	1930	1941	.302	.282	-7.1%	-41
104	27	Jack Tobin	1916	1927	.315	.282	-11.5%	-77
105	117	Alan Trammell	1977	1996	.285	.282	-1.2%	12
106	76	Mo Vaughn	1991	2000	.298	.281	-5.8%	-30
107	106	Chuck Knoblauch	1991	2002	.289	.281	-2.7%	-1
108	33	JOE SEWELL	1920	1933	.312	.281	-11.0%	-75
109	37	Bing Miller	1921	1936	.311	.281	-10.9%	-72
110	85	Bob Johnson	1933	1945	.296	.280	-6.0%	-25
111	109	Johnny Damon*	1995	2010	.287	.280	-2.8%	-2
112	118	CARL YASTRZEMSKI	1961	1983	.285	.279	-2.2%	6
113	61	Hal Trosky	1933	1946	.302	.278	-8.6%	-52
114	40	Joe Vosmik	1930	1944	.311	.278	-11.6%	-74
115	71	Sam West	1927	1942	.299	.276	-8.2%	-44
116	77	Pete Fox	1933	1945	.298	.276	-8.0%	-39
117	75	Dom DiMaggio	1940	1953	.298	.276	-8.1%	-42
118	63	JOE CRONIN	1928	1945	.302	.275	-9.7%	-55
119	87	Doc Cramer	1929	1948	.296	.274	-7.9%	-32
120	57	Charlie Jamieson	1915	1932	.303	.274	-10.8%	-63
* The adjusted rank considers only the 120 players listed here. Players not listed could outrank some of the players near the bottom of the list.

The names of Hall-of-Famers are capitalized to draw your attention to several who were enshrined mainly on the strength of grossly inflated batting averages.

There is more work to be done, especially with respect to age. Consider, for example, Shoeless Joe Jackson, whose career ended at age 30. Had Jackson continued to play until he was 40, say, his career average would have declined, and with it his position on the list.

Ichiro Suzuki didn't play in the U.S. until he was 27. Would his career average be even higher if he had crossed over the Pacific in his early 20s? He is atop the list because of his post-32 performance, relative to Ty Cobb's.

Then there is the case of Ted Williams, whose average and ranking slipped markedly because he enjoyed the friendly confines of Fenway Park. But Williams, who also hit well in his "old age," missed a lot of peak batting time during WWII and the Korean War.

I will end, for now, with this tantalizing comparison of Suzuki, Cobb, Jackson, and Williams:


Cobb's consistent brilliance from age 22 to age 32 borders on the amazing. Williams was a great "old" hitter, as Suzuki is proving to be. It is evident that Jackson, despite the closeness of his average to Cobb's, probably wouldn't have caught Cobb, unless he had finished in a Suzuki-like manner.

ADDENDUM:

Final, age-adjusted BA for the top-3 all-time AL hitters:

Cobb	0.363919
Suzuki	0.358241
Jackson	0.355946

Go here for details.