Career stats adjusted for military service

[howard38]

Two guys whose stats are tough to project because they weren't quite the same players when they returned from military service:

Everyone knows that Cecil Travis lost four years to the war after having a career year in 1941. He was only 27 and batted .359. He struggled badly when he returned and retired soon afterwards.

Sam Chapman also had a career year in 1941 and also lost four years. He was only 25 when he batted .322 w/25 HRs. He was a decent player when he returned but never close to his 1941 level.

Dick Wakefield might also fall into this category. He was in the service, discharged and then went back in the service. In the meantime he batted .355 w/12 HRs in just half of the 1944 season when he was only 23. When he returned again in 1946 he was never as good.

I guess it's impossible to project what kind of numbers these guys would have put up if their careers had not been interrupted. Maybe their big years were just flukes or perhaps they would have been hall of famers.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by howard38

Two guys whose stats are tough to project because they weren't quite the same players when they returned from military service:

Everyone knows that Cecil Travis lost four years to the war after having a career year in 1941. He was only 27 and batted .359. He struggled badly when he returned and retired soon afterwards.

Sam Chapman also had a career year in 1941 and also lost four years. He was only 25 when he batted .322 w/25 HRs. He was a decent player when he returned but never close to his 1941 level.

Dick Wakefield might also fall into this category. He was in the service, discharged and then went back in the service. In the meantime he batted .355 w/12 HRs in just half of the 1944 season when he was only 23. When he returned again in 1946 he was never as good.

I guess it's impossible to project what kind of numbers these guys would have put up if their careers had not been interrupted. Maybe their big years were just flukes or perhaps they would have been hall of famers.

Chapman had an interesting stat line when he returned from active service. In 1940, he showed outstanding power potential with 26 doubles and 23 home runs along with his 23 home runs. He hit .276 in 134 games, but struck out 96 times in 508 official at bats. For the period, that was a pretty high strikeout rate. He was ever so slightly below a 19% strikeout rate. The next season, his real breakout season of 1941, one of the reasons for his improvement was a big cut in his strikeout rate. In 552 at bats, he hit .322 with 29 doubles, 25 home runs and 106 RBI. He'd more than cut his strikeout rate in half to just under 9%. He struck out only 49 times, and walked 46 times.

He missed all of 1942 to 1944, and almost 1945. In looking at his numbers after returning, while he never again had the same level of success he had in 1941, he maintained his improved strikeout rate. Between 1946 and 1950, he had a .261 AVG with 19 HR and 85 RBI per season. Still pretty good. His strikeout rate for the period was about 12.4%. But again, when you consider his walkout to strikeout ratio was almost exactly 1:1, I wonder why he didn't have a little more success than he did. 322 walks and 333 strike outs with good power-you have to wonder what he might have accomplished had he not been away from the game for so long. It's actually remarkable that he was away from the game as long as he was, and still enjoyed a pretty successful run when he did come back.

By my estimation, he missed about 562 games because of his service in the Navy during WW II. For the 1942 to 1945 period he missed, I used his production from 1939 to 1946 as a basis, and his career numbers are greatly improved.



Cecil Travis was really coming into his own when he joined the Army in the winter of 1941. He'd been an All Star three of the prior four seasons, and he'd finished second in the American League in hitting with a .359 average. In many seasons, that would have won him a batting title. Unfortunately for Travis, that was the year that Ted Williams hit .406.

From 1937 to 1941, Travis had averaged 140 games played. Therefore, I estimate that he missed some 525 games to military service between 1942 and 1945. A career .314 AVG across 7,000 career at bats would make for a pretty impressive career, don't you guys think?



Dick Wakefield, I admit, is a player I knew nothing about. I'd heard his name a few times, but I don't recall ever looking at his career stats. But it's really sad that he didn't get a chance to continue his career. If you look at that first season and a half he had roughly 1,000 at bats (1,029 to be precise). The guy had a .328 average at 23 years old. What's more, in his first season, he'd hit only 7 home runs in 633 at bats, driving in 79 runs. In his second season, he'd hit 12 home runs with 53 RBI in only 276 at bats. He finished 6th in the MVP vote his rookie season. He was so good in 1944 that he finished 5th in the MVP vote even though he only played in 78 of 154 games. In 1945, while Wakefield was serving America in the Navy, his Tigers won the World Series. It's almost impossible to think that Wakefield wasn't a superstar in the making on one of the best teams in baseball. But Wakefield was arrogant, and headstrong. He bet Ted Williams that when they got back to baseball, he'd hit for a better average than Williams, hit more home runs and drive in more runs than Williams. When he returned to the Majors, he never regained his stroke.

I can average out the time missed based on those roughly 1,000 at bats. It shows tremendous potential, and a level of play that he never again achieved once he returned to the Major Leagues.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by almostdone

Bill,
I absolutely appreciate you taking the time to do this. I worked an 11 1/2 hr day yesterday and when I got home I said hello to my wife and went to our bedroom to change. I decided to pick up my iPad and see any updates quickly. I started reding your posts to my question on Reese and Musial and pouring over the numbers. Time got away from me so when I went back downstairs my wife asked if everything was ok. I told her with a huge smile about this thread and the numbers that could have been. She politely listened and tried to share in my joy but after a few minutes of my rambling she just looked at me and said "You're such a nerd sometimes". I know she was kidding ( sort of) but I took it as a compliment.
Thanks again for doing all this. It it's really fascinating to me and I'm sure many others on this forum.
Drew

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Amazing work Bill! I'm very impressed by your analytic skills and research, this thread is very intriguing. Thanks!

Sincerely, Clayton

Thank you, gentlemen. Drew, I think in this instance, being a bit of a nerd is a good thing. Baseball, more than any other sport I've ever seen, lends itself to statistical analysis. That statement is reinforced by the seemingly endless array of new metrics introduced every couple of years, ones that I have not yet begun to understand, let alone master. The most interesting advancements, in my opinion, are the fielding metrics. I don't know how they can be accurately applied to older players, but wouldn't it be interesting if we were able to compare Ruth, Aaron, Clemente, Kaline and Ichiro, and definitively determine who had the best range, the best instincts, the strongest arm, and which of those Hall of Famers was truly the best overall defensive performer. If those numbers favored Clemente as much as I think they would, how would that change the perception of Clemente. If we're able to say "Babe Ruth, as a hitter, meant this many wins, while Clemente, with his glove and arm, won this many games."

Brooks Robinson versus Eddie Mathews, Ozzie Smith versus Alex Rodriguez, Johnny Bench versus Ivan Rodriguez. It opens up so many interesting possibilities. Maybe these defensive metrics need to be refined over time. Or, maybe they're accurate already. But to think that we might be able to answer questions that have existed for decades, and then create new questions from those answers...I will openly admit I'm happy to be a baseball nerd in the year 2014.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Chapman had an interesting stat line when he returned from active service. In 1940, he showed outstanding power potential with 26 doubles and 23 home runs along with his 23 home runs. He hit .276 in 134 games, but struck out 96 times in 508 official at bats. For the period, that was a pretty high strikeout rate. He was ever so slightly below a 19% strikeout rate. The next season, his real breakout season of 1941, one of the reasons for his improvement was a big cut in his strikeout rate. In 552 at bats, he hit .322 with 29 doubles, 25 home runs and 106 RBI. He'd more than cut his strikeout rate in half to just under 9%. He struck out only 49 times, and walked 46 times.

He missed all of 1942 to 1944, and almost 1945. In looking at his numbers after returning, while he never again had the same level of success he had in 1941, he maintained his improved strikeout rate. Between 1946 and 1950, he had a .261 AVG with 19 HR and 85 RBI per season. Still pretty good. His strikeout rate for the period was about 12.4%. But again, when you consider his walkout to strikeout ratio was almost exactly 1:1, I wonder why he didn't have a little more success than he did. 322 walks and 333 strike outs with good power-you have to wonder what he might have accomplished had he not been away from the game for so long. It's actually remarkable that he was away from the game as long as he was, and still enjoyed a pretty successful run when he did come back.

By my estimation, he missed about 562 games because of his service in the Navy during WW II. For the 1942 to 1945 period he missed, I used his production from 1939 to 1946 as a basis, and his career numbers are greatly improved.



Cecil Travis was really coming into his own when he joined the Army in the winter of 1941. He'd been an All Star three of the prior four seasons, and he'd finished second in the American League in hitting with a .359 average. In many seasons, that would have won him a batting title. Unfortunately for Travis, that was the year that Ted Williams hit .406.

From 1937 to 1941, Travis had averaged 140 games played. Therefore, I estimate that he missed some 525 games to military service between 1942 and 1945. A career .314 AVG across 7,000 career at bats would make for a pretty impressive career, don't you guys think?



Dick Wakefield, I admit, is a player I knew nothing about. I'd heard his name a few times, but I don't recall ever looking at his career stats. But it's really sad that he didn't get a chance to continue his career. If you look at that first season and a half he had roughly 1,000 at bats (1,029 to be precise). The guy had a .328 average at 23 years old. What's more, in his first season, he'd hit only 7 home runs in 633 at bats, driving in 79 runs. In his second season, he'd hit 12 home runs with 53 RBI in only 276 at bats. He finished 6th in the MVP vote his rookie season. He was so good in 1944 that he finished 5th in the MVP vote even though he only played in 78 of 154 games. In 1945, while Wakefield was serving America in the Navy, his Tigers won the World Series. It's almost impossible to think that Wakefield wasn't a superstar in the making on one of the best teams in baseball. But Wakefield was arrogant, and headstrong. He bet Ted Williams that when they got back to baseball, he'd hit for a better average than Williams, hit more home runs and drive in more runs than Williams. When he returned to the Majors, he never regained his stroke.

I can average out the time missed based on those roughly 1,000 at bats. It shows tremendous potential, and a level of play that he never again achieved once he returned to the Major Leagues.

Good stuff, Bill. I think Travis would have finished w/close to 3,000 hits though simply because had his feet not frozen during the Battle of the Bulge he may well have played at a high level until the early 1950s instead of retiring at the age of 33. The other two guys didn't have as much of a track record so I do't think there is any way to know how their careers would have progressed had they not missed so many prime seasons.

Interesting about Alexander too. I had seen pictures of him in military dress but had never considered how his career might have been affected. Two other pitchers I hadn't thought of until you started this thread are Red Ruffing and Ted Lyons. Both were near the end of their careers but also were still pitching at high levels and continued to do so when they returned. Ruffing lost two and a half years and likely missed winning 300 because of it. Lyons lost three full seasons and it is conceivable that he could also have won 300. The year before he entered the service he completed all twenty of his starts and led the league in ERA. When he returned at age 45 he completed all five of his starts w/an ERA of 2.32. An amazing streak of twenty-five straight complete games all after the age of forty.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by howard38

Good stuff, Bill. I think Travis would have finished w/close to 3,000 hits though simply because had his feet not frozen during the Battle of the Bulge he may well have played at a high level until the early 1950s instead of retiring at the age of 33. The other two guys didn't have as much of a track record so I do't think there is any way to know how their careers would have progressed had they not missed so many prime seasons.

Interesting about Alexander too. I had seen pictures of him in military dress but had never considered how his career might have been affected. Two other pitchers I hadn't thought of until you started this thread are Red Ruffing and Ted Lyons. Both were near the end of their careers but also were still pitching at high levels and continued to do so when they returned. Ruffing lost two and a half years and likely missed winning 300 because of it. Lyons lost three full seasons and it is conceivable that he could also have won 300. The year before he entered the service he completed all twenty of his starts and led the league in ERA. When he returned at age 45 he completed all five of his starts w/an ERA of 2.32. An amazing streak of twenty-five straight complete games all after the age of forty.

Howard, I absolutely agree with you about Travis. Enthusiastically so.

When I look at a hitter, and assess if they have a shot at 3,000 hits, a couple of the factors I weigh heavily are consistency, health, and most importantly, how early did they start playing? Travis was already a Major Leaguer at age 19. By age 21, he was already getting 170 hits a season. In 1939, he hit .292, and totaled only 139 hits because, per Wikipedia, he had two bouts of the flu. Every other year he was a .300 hitter, and he wasn't just squeaking by, either. From 1934 on, he hit .319, .318, .317, .344, .335, .292, .322 and .359 in 1941. The man was simply a great hitter. When he's compared to his peers, he holds his own with the very best baseball has to offer.

Consider the period from 1934 to 1941. Travis had the sixth highest batting average in all of baseball for that period (minimum 3,000 plate appearances)



Look at the names on that list. When you're on a list ahead of Charlie Gehringer, Luke Appling, Hank Greenberg, Arky Vaughan, Bill Dickey, Earl Averill and Paul Waner, among others, you're running with the high society.

And in the last four years, he was trending upwards. Here's a list of all Major League Hitters for the period of 1938 to 1941, sorted by most hits.



Now, that's including the '39 season where he had two bouts of the flu. Between 1940-1941, nobody in all of baseball had more hits than Cecil Travis' 388.



Travis was a .342 hitter those last two seasons. He was getting a lot of plate appearances, and striking out only 48 times in 1,249 plate appearances was a discipline trend that was going to continue getting Travis more and more playing time.

The surgery done to his feet after he suffered frostbite at the Battle of the Bulge essentially curtailed what was going to be, in my opinion, a Hall of Fame career. Even after he came back, and hit only .241 for his final 800 at bats, he hung up his cleats still having a .314 career average.

I hope that, if anything, we've shown just a few members of Net 54 who Cecil Travis was, and how outstanding a ballplayer he was. He fought for our country, and when he wasn't putting his life on the line for America, he was a hell of a hitter.