As I said before, as a peak/prime voter these various fine distinctions don't enter into my eval of individual players very much. This argument, for me, applies more to why I became a peak/prime rather than a career voter.

My point was to clarify the question: Can a player be less valuable, can he rate less highly after X+1 seasons than he did after X?

Forget comparing him to somebody else. The question was how he compares to himself over time.

For me, the answer is no, he cannot rate lower in terms of cumulative value.

"In terms of cumulative value," this is correct. However, I doubt KJOK would say that the numbers he is talking about represent "cumulative value." Rather, they represent "cumulative value above average," which is a different kind of value, which needs to be assessed differently from "cumulative value" of the sort Sunnyday2 is talking about.

And, in terms of merit, players _can and do_ rate less highly after X+1 seasons than he did after X. That's because the electorate is agreed that for certain values of X, say, X<3, X is too small to be a meaningful measure of merit. Norm Cash had a great season, but he needed more seasons like that one to get full credit, as it were, for that first great season, and he didn't have them. These additional seasons raise his "cumulative value," sure, but they are also "lowering his peak." We don't take value away from the X seasons, but we decline to count them on their own.

I guess that's a way of saying that, in theory, in comparing a player to himself, he never loses value, but in practice, we are never comparing players to themselves, but to other players or to composite standards like replacement level, average, all-star, MVP, etc. Comparison of players to a standard other than replacement level or the win shares zero point is part of the process, and in relation to some of these standards, a player may lose value as well as gain it in subsequent seasons. As long as we recognize what the standard is, and how players rise toward and fall away from those standards in the course of a career so that we are using each standard appropriately, our evaluations will be valid.

Appropriate application of each sort of standard is rightly subject to debate. Although I have mostly defended KJOK's position against criticisms of it, I should say that Sunnyday2's original concern about Rawagman's "docking' of Bunning for his late-career performance might well be a valid concern.

I did a study looking at Waddell's UER % as compared to a number of his peers in his generation. The numbers are only very slightly higher than the norm and even after you turn enough of the UERs to ER', his ERA+ is still very impressive.
I'll find where I posted my results.
. . .
1975 Ballot discussion - post 148.

I explained why I think the group needs clarification, maybe but maybe not available by archival research here.

Maybe but maybe not Chris J graduates this month.
May he!

--
Someone mentioned the absurdity of docking a player for having poor seasons.

It's only partly a matter of semantics, which means that it isn't a matter of semantics!
It's a matter of sabermetric ideology.
And a matter of allegiance because Bill James made one instance emphatically the centerpiece of his critical work.

Within the family of arguments, or version of this point, some focus strictly on the end of career --the comparison between X and X+1 years, Marc's terms, where the +1 is an extra season at the end.

Anyone who uses a sum-of-seasons career rating as the sole basis for ranking is simply on one side of this matter or the other as negative values are within or outside the range of the season rating.
I suspect that anyone who uses a more complicated rating, commonly in this forum one with peak or prime components, "docks" some players for poor seasons, commonly without knowing it. Indeed, I suspect that is common even at career's end.

>I suspect that anyone who uses a more complicated rating, commonly in this forum one with peak or prime components, "docks" some players for poor seasons, commonly without knowing it. Indeed, I suspect that is common even at career's end.

Why I thought the matter was worth a comment.

John you asked about Waddell:

Is there evidence that he was an effective pitcher during that time? If there is, that would help Rube in my book.

Rube was a mover in his early career so he lost some value since he didn't earn Major League win shares. These are rough numbers:

1899 - 26 Wins in the Western League. Then our course he won 7 more in the NL. Western League was at least decent I think.

1900 - 9-3 in the American League, which was minor league that year. Added some NL value that year as well.

1902 - In addition to the 24 wins for the A's had 12 wins early in the year out in LA in the Coast League. Then Mack brought him to Philly.

So ol' Rube might be better than just what the ML numbers show.

from the NBJHA on Bunning, noting that Bunning had very poor reocrds in his first 4 minor league seasons (cumulative 25-39), leaidng to a somewhat latte entry to a MLB job:

"Bunning threw with a long, sweeping side-arm/three quaretrs delivery, culminating with a violent rush or fall toward first base. The Tigers signed him and tried to make him pitch normal - and almost ruined his career."

Do I give credit for "career held back by mishandling"? Probably not; a pretty murky area to get drawn into. But FWIW, there's the quote.

For what it's worth, Jim Bunning owned Ernie Banks (from retrosheet.org):

Banks was 15-for-59 against Bunning with 1 home run. He did not draw a walk, though Bunning hit him twice. Banks' rate stats against Bunning are .254/.279/.339.

I would like to clarify my views.
The dross of a player's career does not dock the player. I (try to) focus on what what a player did well and how often he was able to keep his standard as compared to how often he wasn't.

Let's look at an example in this year's eligibles: Dick Ellsworth.
In 1963, Dick had an ERA+ of 163. That season has a lot of value. No question about it.
In 1963, Dick Ellsworth was a hell of a pitcher.

But, in '62, his ERA+ was 81. In '64, it was 99.
So he goes from a below average pitcher, to a Cy Young pitcher, to a middle of the road pitcher.
So what kind of pitcher was Dick Ellsworth?
Can I ignore the poor years and just look at Ellsowrth circa 1963?
Do I look at his career ERA+ of 100 and conclude that he was around average. Maybe forget the anomalous '63 and see his career ERA+ without that year.

It's easier to look at Ellsworth this way than it is to look at Bunning, as Ellsworth had virtually no prime. Just a one year peak.
In my system, that peak acts as a bonus in stabilizing what would otherwise be complete dross.
Yet he still doesn't add up to anything beyond a 5 minute career retrospective.



Jim Bunning's peak was not as grand as Ellsworth's. But it was longer. It was more of a career. Worth a place in my pitcher consideration set.
Right between Addie Joss and Bucky Walters.

Was Jim Bunning the pitcher he was in 1966 and 1967? Or was he the guy seen in 1962 and 1963?
He was both and more.
His ERA+ and DERA numbers (careerwise: 114, 4.04) do not overly impress. His winning % was mediocre.
His ink scores highly, indicating a nice prime/peak. All-Star selections are nice, but really don't mean much.

His prime keeps him interesting. He has more grey ink than anyone in my consideration set except for Jim McCormick.
But the black ink (hinting his peak) is relatively average. Falls far below my good friends Rube Waddell and Lefty Gomez, as well as Dizzy Dean, Bucky Walters, Mickey Welch and Jim McCormick.
He's similar in that regards to Don Drysdale. Prime and peak are almost the same. Drysdale had a stronger career, though.

I guess I am that rare breed who looks for a combination of peak/career. I believe I explained before that my system doesn't really punish players for having had a poor season or two on their resume. The poor seasons come into effect after 3 or 4 and then only in reflection with how strong the peak was to offset it.

Here are the RA+ PythPat records for a bunch of pitchers: first the overall equivalent W-L, then the five best seasons.



Adjustments that should be made from there:

Adjust for defensive support. I have already adjusted Willis for defensive support; without that adjustment he'd be at 258-186. I haven't adjusted any of the rest of these.

Adjustment for IP expectations for top pitchers: that's the main reason I've allowed both Waddell and Willis to fade from my ballot. A number of things have been said recently about Waddell's unearned runs - note that I've always used RA, not ERA, and this is where he lands in my system. But note that IP went up in the 60's, and Bunning is the beneficiary of that.

Adjustment for pitcher's own hitting: not done for any of these. Of note: Earl Wilson was terrific, a low-average Three True Outcomes hitter. About what Rob Deer would have been as a part-time player in the 60's. And Dean Chance was pathetic.

Adjustment for relief leverage: of course, that's a big issue for Wilhelm - but note the Wilhelm looks pretty good anyway just straight up on this measure. That matters for Pierce quite a bit. Note that Bunning also has relief work - not as much as Pierce, but it was a part of what he did.

Someone characterized Bunning as Pierce plus a couple of replacement-level seasons. I have the difference at 20-30; yeah, that's about a couple of replacement level seasons. One issue that does come up: Bunning had a very high number of IP per decision, 9.22. Thus I assign him more equivalent decisions than would someone who started from his actual decisions. (Wilhelm sort of fouls the system up completely, with 12.7 IP/decision.)

I'll probably have Pierce and Bunning 2-3 on my ballot, in an order yet to be determined.

Have we overlooked someone in Larry Jackson? Pitching in the tough NL, with a record I'd be willing to put up against a number of people who have received votes: Trucks, Trout, Grimes, Mays, even Walters.

I have to look at the entire picture of their career.

rawagman, I would then say that your system was flawed unless Rube Waddell is docked at least as much for his 1913-1916 seasons as Jim Bunning is for his 1968-1971 seasons. Both were age 36-39 during those years. If you're not docking Waddell then in any head's-up comparison of the two, you are unfairly docking Bunning in those seasons despite the high likelihood that he was a better pitcher than Waddell in those seasons. (The circumstantial evidence for that statement is strong given that Waddell did not pitch in the majors after 1910.) You're not looking at the "entire picture" of Rube's career, either.

Being a major league pitcher is usually better than being a minor league pitcher and always better than not being a pitcher at all. (Though in the case of Bunning, 1971, not by much ;-)

Sorry, rawagman, I did not see your last post.

The poor seasons come into effect after 3 or 4

I wouldn't care how many "poor" seasons a player had. It couldn't erase/effect the great ones. If Sandy Koufax had pitched for 10 additional years at minimal effectiveness, it wouldn't change what he accomplished at his zenith. He would still be a HOM pitcher.

Right - he would be - because of the strength of his peak. I believe I had Koufax #1 on my ballot.

I don't dock anyone. I just don't ignore the dross.
Like I said - I am a peak/career voter.
The dross has no effect on my peak judgement.
In career tallying, I prefer rate stats to others. And dross effects rate stats.

Bunning had a nice peak, but not any better than several other pitchers on my ballot.

BTW - It comes down to the question:
Who am I voting for?
Am I voting for the guy at his best, or in his entirety?

My aim here is to make my vote based on the entirety to the best of my ability.

Have we overlooked someone in Larry Jackson?

Jackson is of interest as someone who walked away from baseball when he was still quite an effective pitcher, the anti-Bunning in that respect. Basically Jackson docked himself a chance to get to 200 wins. (He was taken by the Expos in the expansion draft, but decided not to report for the 1969 season.)

Jackson was also a Republican politician, so we're back to where we started in this thread :)

Norm Cash had a great season, but he needed more seasons like that one to get full credit, as it were, for that first great season, and he didn't have them. These additional seasons raise his "cumulative value," sure, but they are also "lowering his peak."

Yes, so in a sense you can imagine a player's career, or a voter's system, as being like a parachute laid flat out. That's the ultimate perfectly flat peaked, super-long 800 win-share career. Meanwhile a crane starts picking up the parachute by its center. There's the peak, and at its most extreme is the vertical, super-monster, barely-theoretically-possible 200 win-share one-year career. All of our systems weigh the peak/career differently, but it only matters in a pretty narrow band of ranges---below solid HOMer (say Doby), above the 100th best backlogger (or thereabouts, maybe Lazzeri?).

Anyway, to finish the conceit, as the crane raises or lowers the center of the parachute, there's a sympathetic reaction at the edge of the chute. As the chute goes up, the edges draw closer to the center, as the chute falls, the edges spread out. Each voter's preferences, therefore are expressed along the edges of that chute (even Yest's, I think---ducks!), and each voter's tolerance for more or less career or peak is visible. If we knew the individual tolerances of each voter, then the slope between a player's peak and his career could be used to predict his "electability."

I think.

Sometimes when I think out loud things come out strange.

So...many of you voters claim you are not docking candidates for poor or below average years either early or late in players careers.
But this must not be true given poor old Sisler's struggle to get elected.

His first seven years, he's got oodles of grey and black ink and his HoF monitor for his career is twice the average of most players selected to the HoF.

But this group of voters tends to focus on his so-so years after his return and not his 7 year prime/peak.
The guy still had some grey ink after 1922 but that seems to get pushed under the bed and not acknowledged.

Which is it; docking of credit for career end results or an underappreciation for what he accomplished from 1916-1922?

Everything I've ever read about Sisler has his contemporaries truly appreciating his efforts and overwhelmingly acknowledging his right to be in Cooperstown.
Why not the HoM?

In career tallying, I prefer rate stats to others. And dross effects rate stats.

But to be consistent, you have to add sub-replacement pitching to Waddell, Dean, etc. Bunning's "poor" major league pitching is still better than Waddell's minor league pitching or Dean's non-pitching.

You're ignoring their dross because it was worse than Bunning's dross.

While you all continue to argue the same points over and over, I thought I should mention that in my own research (sorry no career or peak or docking going on) I’ve come to realize that Bunning was a pretty instrumental in a couple of pennant races. Both on the negative side. While I'm not sure how much you want to weight this, it certainly matters at least in my opinion when trying to determine the contributions the player made.

In 61, the tigers were hanging tough with the Yankees going into the final month, 2.5 back. By the 15th it was 10.5 and by the end of the season it was 8. On August 30th, while only a game and half back - Bunning dropped a key decision to the White Sox which dropped the Tigers 2.5 half back. His next start was versus the Yankees, which the Tigers lost again, sending them 4.5 back setting the stage for their fade. He went 2-1 over his next 5 starts, but didn't pitch to the bar he set earlier in the season.

In 64 for the Phillies he was a much larger contributor to the decline. The Phillies were 6 up on Sept 15th, and ended up losing out to the Cards by a game at the end of the season. After 9/15 Bunning lost his FOUR very key games, not pitching well. Including a head to head match up with the Cards on 9/30 - not making it out of the 4th inning.

Bunning performance while in the playoff hunt is a mark against him - it should be noted and considered, unless of course you want to spend more time on the forest.

Thanks for the info, Mister Standards.

Given that the Tigers finished 8 back of the Yankees, it's hard to see how any one player could have made the difference, though it's useful to note that Bunning didn't perform well when it appeared that that good performance might be important.

The 1965 info IS important because that pennant was decided by a zillion little things. It was noted early in the thread by TomH in Post #6:

1964 pennant race: lost 3 games in late Sept while Phils collapsed, by scores of 5-3, 14-8, 8-5. Last two were on 2 days rest. Oh, and then on the season's last day with Philly eliminated, he tossed a shutout.

How much of the negative performance can be attributed to Bunning and how much to Gene Mauch's judgement in deciding to run his best pitchers out there on two-days rest?

How much of the negative performance can be attributed to Bunning and how much to Gene Mauch's judgement in deciding to run his best pitchers out there on two-days rest?

Excellent question, Jim.

A similar question could be asked in regard to some of Clemens' ineffective postseason outings, too.

Bunning performance while in the playoff hunt is a mark against him - it should be noted and considered, unless of course you want to spend more time on the forest.

Since I only posted the thread as of Monday, Matt, don't you think that was a little unfair? Check out other recent threads where we have discussed the postseason record for a few prospective candidates. Besides, things got delayed a bit here due to Bunning's politics causing a stir here.

Jim Bunning's peak was not as grand as Ellsworth's.

That was not a sentence I expected to see in this thread.

The problem with pennant-race analysis in my book is this:

If the team wins, a guy either looks good or gets a free pass for poor performance.

If the team fades out of contention (a la the Tiggers example above) it's not instructive to look at one guy when a whole team goes into the tank.

If the team goes 0-13 to lose the pennant like the Whizzes, there are so many missed opportunities that it's not instructive to blame one guy.

If a team loses by a single game, and Jim Bunning (or anyone) started and lost that game, it wouldn't change my ranking. His true effect on the pennant race is established in the other 163 games of the season, where he contributed the other 250-300 or so innings of his season.

In addition, this type of pennant-race analysis tends to lead very quickly into issues of character. I'm not in the business of awarding character points to candidates, and I look at whole seasons so I stay away from this question entirely.

Similarly, I don't look at post-season performance either. Sample is too small, and the very presence of the data is at most 10% related to the player himself. He's mostly just lucky to be on a good team. If that makes a guy HOM-worthy, then maybe I should be voting with the BBWAA instead (or more likely the Vets).

So ol' Rube might be better than just what the ML numbers show.

Thanks, Al. I'll take that into account.

And frankly, I think Mr.HS is aiming his criticisms wrongly if, as is implied in his commentary, he thinks that the cycle of discussion, cogitation, and revisitation of ideas is a weakness of the HOM. (As an interested party) I think the opposite is more likely true: that because of the thoughtful, even ponderous, nature of our deliberations, we investigate candidates, voting systems, analysis techniques, whatevers with a thoroughness fully appropriate to our mission.

In fact, I'd further say that if we didn't revisit topics and regularly reconsider our positions, we'd be violating the spirit of our organizational mandate and reducing the credibility of our enterprise (I'm kind of assuming the HOM has some level of credibility outside itself---i mean does anyone outside of have a sense of its cred or not?).

I mean look at the alternative---it's the BBWAA model with virtually no public inter-voter discussion and no accountability (it only works so-so for C-town) or the Vets model with an even more secretive discussion/consensus model (which might work like 30% of the time). The proof that thoughtful discussion works is in the pudding. Our worst guy is probably Sam Thompson; they have dozens worse than him!

(BTW, have I just allowed myself to be baited into a pissing match?)

he thinks that the cycle of discussion, cogitation, and revisitation of ideas is a weakness of the HOM.

Actually your wrong - the weakness of the hall of merit (in my opinion, and I read most threads) is you spend far to much time debating the size and shape of a players career and not enough time discusing what actually goes into the career - in other words you lose too much granualirity by looking at the macro, and minimizing the micro. I have other issues as well, but I respect the work your doing at a high level so I won't quibble.

For all the talk of reconsidering how often do people actually change their mind in light of specific posts? From what I've seen very little - most of the change is people realizeing themselevs that they miss calibrated some variable in their system?

Since I only posted the thread as of Monday, Matt, don't you think that was a little unfair?

Now John, whats unfair is writing off someones research as a disagreement on career versus peak... maybe unfair is the wrong word and condescending is the better one. 116 posts had been made prior to mine, how many talked about what Bunning did within the seasonal level? 1, 2, 3? To me that is what intresting. Everything else you can find on baseball reference, or prospectus or what have you.

Keep up the good work, i'll go back to lurking and occasionally noting an intresting observation in my notebook.

162 IP minimum, listing all 100 ERA+ seasons:
Drysdale 154 49 40 29 28 22 18 17 15 13
JBunning 150 49 43 42 34 32 29 14 14 04
BiPierce 201 48 41 36 33 24 15 13 08 07 07 05 04 03
RWaddell 179 79 65 53 26 25 23 21 07 02
(Pierce's 201 is not a top-10 IP season)

Drysdale top 10 in IP: 1 1 2 2 4 5 5 5 9 9 10
JBunning top 10 in IP: 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 6 8
BiPierce top 10 in IP: 3 3 3 5 5 7
RWaddell top 10 in IP: 3 4 4 10

Waddell has risen quite a bit in my rankings (probably in my top 15 this year) because of the unearned run info. I still think that his poor W-L is less a coincidence than Bunning's might be, but I give that lesser weight now.

BUT... anyone who has a conversation about Waddell without conceding his MUCH weaker workload relative to his time is not seeing the whole picture. Rube's just not keeping up with his contemporaries, especially since it was only an 8-team league.
So while Waddell's top 4 seasons are excellent, you must acknowledge that in two of them he isn't even in the top 10 in IP that year.

Bunning put up a 150 and a 149 ERA+ while finishing 1st and 2nd in IP that year.
Define it as you will, but that is significant added value to just a pure ERA+ number with a lot fewer relative innings.

I likely will have Bunning near the top (with Redding), Pierce mid-ballot, and Waddell low-ballot....

So...many of you voters claim you are not docking candidates for poor or below average years either early or late in players careers.
But this must not be true given poor old Sisler's struggle to get elected.

It's more like he's not receiving much credit for his post-1922 career. It helps, but not to a great extent.

Now John, whats unfair is writing off someones research as a disagreement on career versus peak

Is this in reference to something I posted or are you referring to someone else? I went over my posts on this thread and I don't see any writing off anyone's research here, unless I'm misinterpreting what you mean by research.

Mister High Standards == Matt

Unless these are two different Matts, then is Mr HS a former HOM voter? (under different handles)

and then on the season's last day with Philly eliminated, he tossed a shutout.

The Cardinals had won that afternoon (defeating the Mets 11-5), eliminating the Phillies. But their opponent, the Reds, could have forced a playoff with a victory over the Phillies that night.

Unless these are two different Matts, then is Mr HS a former HOM voter? (under different handles)

No, he is Matt Rauseo. He used to post under Rauseo until he was christened "Mr. High Standards" at the last SABR convention. Besides meeting him there, I had contact with him a few years ago when he was an owner in my Diamond Mind league.

Matt is in charge of the Baseball Quote Blog here, BTW.

Bunning's "poor" major league pitching is still better than Waddell's minor league pitching or Dean's non-pitching.

In Waddell's case, without seeing the numbers I don't think we can assume that Bunning's poor ML pitching was better than Waddell's pitching in the minors between 1897 and 1902. Waddell was a character, so there are reasons having nothing to do with his performance on the mound that might have kept him off of major-league rosters during those years. I still wouldn't advocate for MLE credit for Waddell, since his personality was part of his skill set, but, speaking only in terms of the ability to get batters out once he got to the mound, I think it's entirely possible that Waddell was at least a major-league average pitcher in quality even though he was earning his living in the minors. Bunning, in his later years, was not of that quality.

Pitching Log - Jim Bunning 1964

4/15 Wd NYM 1 Phi 4 STALLARD-BUNNING (0-1 vs 1^0)
4/24 Fr Chi 0 Phi 10 BUHL-BUNNING (3-4 vs 5^1)
5/01 Fr Phi 5 Mil 3 BUNNING-SPAHN (9^2 vs 8-5)
5/05 Tu Phi 1 StL 2 BUNNING-WASHBURN (10-5 vs 11^4)
5/09 Sa Cin 4 Phi 5 PURKEY-Bunning (11-11 vs 13-6)(GREEN)
5/14 Th StL 2 Phi 3 BROGLIO-BUNNING (16-11 vs 14-9)
5/18 Mo Phi 4 Hou 0 BUNNING-KJOHNSON (17-10 vs 14-19)
5/24 Su Phi 0 LAn 3 BUNNING-MOELLER (21^12 vs 17-21)
5/29 Fr Hou 6 Phi 7 Bruce-Bunning (21-23 vs 22-15)(WOODESHICK-BENNETT)
6/03 We LAn 0 Phi 1 DRYSDALE-Bunning (21-24 vs 26^15)(BALDSCHUN)
6/07 Su SFr 4 Phi 3 Hendley-Bunning (29^19 vs 27-18)(SHAW-ROEBUCK)
6/13 Sa NYM 2 Phi 8 LARY-BUNNING (19-37 vs 29^21)
6/17 We Phi 5 Chi 9 Bunning-BUHL (33^21 vs 27-28)(BALDSCHUN)
6/18 Th Phi 6 Chi 3 SHORT-ELLSWORTH (33^22 vs 28-28) (save: Bunning)
6/21 Su Phi 6 NYM 0 BUNNING-STALLARD (36^23 vs 20-45)
6/26 Fr Phi 6 StL 5 Bunning-Gibson (40^24 vs 34-34)(ROEBUCK-TAYLOR)
6/30 Tu Phi 8 Hou 1 BUNNING-KJOHNSON (42-27 vs 35-39)
7/04 Sa Phi 5 SFr 2 BUNNING-Sanford (45-28 vs 47^29)(GPERRY)
7/11 Sa Cin 3 Phi 1 NUXHALL-BUNNING (43-37 vs 48^29)
7/13 Mo Mil 2 Phi 3 SPAHN-CULP (42-41 vs 48-32) (save: Bunning)
7/15 We Phi 0 Pit 3 BUNNING-FRIEND (49-33 vs 43-39)
7/19 Su Phi 4 Cin 7 Bunning-Maloney (51^35 vs 49-40)(BALDSCHUN-MCCOOL)
7/23 Th Phi 13 Mil 10 Bunning-Lemaster (54^37 vs 47-45)(BALDSCHUN-TIEFANAUER)
7/28 Tu SFr 0 Phi 4 O'DELL-BUNNING (57-42 vs 56^40)
8/01 Sa LAn 6 Phi 10 DRYSDALE-Bunning (50-50 vs 59^41)(WISE)
8/05 We Hou 1 Phi 4 BRUCE-BUNNING (46-62 vs 60^42)
8/09 Su NYM 0 Phi 6 STALLARD-BUNNING (34-77 vs 64^43)
8/14 Fr Phi 6 NYM 1 BUNNING-AJACKSON (35-79 vs 67^44)
8/19 We Chi 5 Phi 9 Ellsworth-Bunning (56-63 vs 71^46)(MCDANIEL-BALDSCHUN)
8/23 Su Pit 3 Phi 9 GIBBON-BUNNING (64-59 vs 75^47)
8/28 Fr Phi 2 Pit 4 Bunning-Gibbon (64-63 vs 77^49)(ROEBUCK-FACE)
9/01 Tu Hou 3 Phi 4 HBROWN-BUNNING (57-75 vs 78^51)
9/05 Sa SFr 3 Phi 9 BOLIN-BUNNING (75-61 vs 81^52)
9/09 We StL 10 Phi 5 Simmons-Bunning (77-61 vs 83^55)(HUMPHREYS-BALDSCHUN)
9/13 Su Phi 4 SFr 1 BUNNING-ESTELLE (80-64 vs 85^57)
9/16!We Phi 5 Hou 6 BUNNING-Nottebart (88^57 vs 59-88)(HBROWN)
9/20 Su Phi 3 LAn 2 BUNNING-BREWER (89^60 vs 75-74)
9/24 Th Mil 5 Phi 3 BLASINGAME-BUNNING (78-73 vs 90^63)
9/27!Su Mil 14 Phi 8 CLONINGER-BUNNING (81-73 vs 90^66)
9/30!We Phi 5 StL 8 BUNNING-SIMMONS (90-69 vs 91^67)
10/4 Su Phi 10 Cin 0 BUNNING-TSITOURIS (91-70 vs 92^69)

Name in all CAPS means a decision (W or L).
Team records follow the starters; ^ means team in first place.
! means Bunning started on short rest.
Bunning also had two relief appearances for Saves.

I would assume that the Phillies were surprise contenders that year. Past performance would have favored the Dodgers (defending champs), Giants (3rd in '63 and champs in '62), Reds (off-year in '63 but strong 3rd in '62 and champs in '61), and Cards (runners-up).

The Giants and Phils got off to the hot starts and took turns in first through mid-July (7/20 was the last day in 1st for the Giants). The Reds moved into 2nd on 8/20 (8/20-8/23 was the Phils max lead of 7.5 games). After Bunning's win on 9/20, the Phillies were 90-60 with 12 games to go and had a 6.5 game lead on the Reds and Cards, 7 on the Giants. Then came the collapse, the 10 game losing streak, the last three to the Cardinals.

On the morning on October 2nd, the standings were:
92-67 -- St. Louis
92-68 0+ Cincinnati
90-70 2+ Philadelphia

The Reds and Phils had two games in Cincy, while the Cards finished with three at home with the lowly Mets (51-108). Bob Gibson lost 1-0 to Al Jackson, while the Phils kept their thin hopes alive by defeating Cincy 4-3, scoring 4 in the 8th to overcome a 3-0 deficit. The next day was an off-day for the Reds/Phils; meanwhile the Mets hammered the Cards and Ray Sadecki 15-5. A three-way tie was still possible if the Mets and Phils both swept. Miraculously, the Mets led 3-2 after 4.5, but Gibson had come on in relief of Curt Simmons, and would get the win as the Cards won going away 11-5. The Phils were eliminated, but they ended the Reds chances of a tiebreaker playoff by shutting them out 10-0, Bunning getting his 19th win and 5th shutout.

Thank you RetroSheet for making this retelling possible.

In Waddell's case, without seeing the numbers I don't think we can assume that Bunning's poor ML pitching was better than Waddell's pitching in the minors between 1897 and 1902.

I'm referring to any pitching that Waddell may have been doing in his late 30's post 1910.

Waddell's pre-1900 years would correspond to Bunning's pre-1955 years. Waddell's 1902 season with the A's would be at the same age as Bunning's first year as a regular in 1957.

If I leave the pre-1910 candidates out of it, the best single season in my post #109 belongs to Dean Chance, at an equivalent 23-7. That's a Koufax-level year (and in the same ballpark as Koufax), but Chance doesn't have a second season to ratify the fluke as a peak, and he's certainly not a career candidate.

After that, I'd rank the next six years as Bunning (24-11), Pierce (18-5), Bunning (21-12), Pierce (20-10), Pierce (19-9), Bunning (21-12). I'm ranking by equivalent FWP, and the there's some roundoff that accounts for such things as the split between Bunning's two 21-12 seasons. On an season-by-season basis, for several seasons, Bunning's greater bulk (in IP) balances very nicely against Pierce's better RA+. Except that Bunning has the single best year. I consider both Pierce and Bunning to be well-qualified peak candidates. Bunning's 1964, much discussed above, comes out as a slightly lesser year at 19-13.

OCF:
Adjustment for IP expectations for top pitchers: that's the main reason I've allowed both Waddell and Willis to fade from my ballot. A number of things have been said recently about Waddell's unearned runs - note that I've always used RA, not ERA, and this is where he lands in my system. But note that IP went up in the 60's, and Bunning is the beneficiary of that.

Maybe because you calculate "IP expectation" based on time-periods that are too long? Eg, the moving average of too many years. In Bunning's case, I suppose that his peak 1964-1967 practically coincides with peak IP for top starting pitchers. If IP expectation is based on 3-year periods, 1963-65 to 1966-68 in case of Bunning's peak, then he barely "benefits" from his good timing.


Bob Dernier:
[Larry Jackson] was taken by the Expos in the expansion draft, but decided not to report for the 1969 season.

Yeah, do your time like Richie Ashburn and you're in the Hall of Merit.


El Chaleeko:
If we knew the individual tolerances of each voter, then the slope between a player's peak and his career could be used to predict his "electability."

No, too many variables. What size parachute did you lay flat? On the ground or on a table?


jimd:
Unless these are two different Matts, then is Mr HS a former HOM voter? (under different handles)

Would Phillybooster knock a Phillie? a star of the 1964 Phillies?


P.S. Murphy, Mister, and others who count articles: please count this "one" as four. We're over 150 now, if you know how to count.

>Waddell's pre-1900 years would correspond to Bunning's pre-1955 years. Waddell's 1902 season with the A's would be at the same age as Bunning's first year as a regular in 1957.

But Waddell was pitching very effectively in the high minors pre-1900 while Bunning was pitching quite ineffectively in the MiL pre-1957.

1902 - In addition to the 24 wins for the A's had 12 wins early in the year out in LA in the Coast League.

The PCL was founded in 1903. The LA team that Waddell played for in early 1902 was part of the "California League," which I believe was considered an "outlaw league" at the time because it didn't respect the reserve clause.

jimd -you don't like my "style" - fair enough.

In career tallying, I prefer rate stats to others. And dross effects rate stats.

But to be consistent, you have to add sub-replacement pitching to Waddell, Dean, etc. Bunning's "poor" major league pitching is still better than Waddell's minor league pitching or Dean's non-pitching.

You're ignoring their dross because it was worse than Bunning's dross.

You lost me here.

Rube Waddell's dross? As a major league pitcher (I do not count minor league stats for any purpose but in the rarest of exceptions. I have 2 so far - Cravath and Carroll), Waddell only once had an ERA+ below 100. That was in 1910, when he pitched 33 innings. I do not weigh in extremely small sample sizes into my rankings for anyone, and 33 innings would not qualify that season by any measure.

I used Ellsworth as an example because his peak year was extreme (more extreme than most, Bunning included) but it was also extremely isolated.

And finally,

anyone who has a conversation about Waddell without conceding his MUCH weaker workload relative to his time is not seeing the whole picture. Rube's just not keeping up with his contemporaries, especially since it was only an 8-team league.
So while Waddell's top 4 seasons are excellent, you must acknowledge that in two of them he isn't even in the top 10 in IP that year.

I choose not to look at IP totals relative to league, as it is ultimately up to each manager how he chooses to use his staff.
There are trends, but I don't think it's a good way to compare Waddell to his peers - unless the differences were extreme, which I'm not seeing here.

I compare each pitcher to his team. For a season to be considered prime, he must have been in the top 2 on his team in IP. He was 1st or 2nd on his team in IP each year from 1902-1909. To me this means that for that 7 year period, his manager wanted Rube on the mound as much as he thought reasonable/possible.

I believe what jimd is saying is that in their decline years, at least Bunning is still a crappy MLB pitcher while the others either aren't pitching at all or are merely toiling in the minors. THAT is the comparison; not Bunning's worst MLB year vs Waddell's worst MLB year.

rawagman, this smells like a logical fallacy: Waddell is not docked for low IP totals relative to his time, because, hey, that's his team's preference. Yet Bunning IS docked for crappy late years - because it was his team's preference that he pitch.

Trying to have it both ways?

Docking Bunning for crappy late years seems debatable; giving Bunning more credit than Waddell for being more relatively durable in his big years seems to me undeniable. Bunning was pitching his relative extra IP while a pitcher weaker than Waddell was pitching those IP for his team; Bunning in late years was pitching crappily because the team couldn't find anyone less crappy (well, that's the idea, anyway).

I don't know how much clearer I can be.
I AM NOT DOCKING ANYONE.
I do not ignore any contribution made above a reasonable small sample size caveat.

You want Bunning to get credit for durability? Fine. Great. Durability is nice. There's merit in durability.

I, personally, do not put much value in durability in and for itself. I am looking for effectiveness.
A voter who likes durability will like Jim Bunning. He had durability. He had effectiveness.
Not always together, but he had them.
Someone please tell me they understand me.

Waddell is not docked for low IP totals relative to his time, because, hey, that's his team's preference. Yet Bunning IS docked for crappy late years - because it was his team's preference that he pitch.

IMO, a pitcher's IP should be handled the same way we do with ERA or OPS by normalization.

I, personally, do not put much value in durability in and for itself. I am looking for effectiveness.

But if a manager misuses his hurlers by having them pitch more than they should have, wont that affect their effectiveness? Would Addie Joss have had the same ERA if he pitched as many IP as McGinnity? I would bet money that his ERA would have been much higher.

BTW rawagman, hang in there. We all get the "third degree" every once and a while. It's just a way to keep all of us honest. Nothing personal.

Did you get into the HoM Yahoo group?

Matt, explain to me why a game in September is more important than a game in April. They both count as 1/162th or 1/154th of the season.

I'm not discrediting your research, and it is interesting, but to me it's not relevant how a pitcher pitches down the stretch. If the pitcher hadn't pitched well earlier in the year, his team wouldn't have been in that spot to begin with.

To me it's a red herring. There's absolutely nothing more valuable about being 6-0 in September than being 6-0 in April.

October is different. I do give credit if a player played especially well in the post-season, but to me it's more in the bullsh!t dump, as opposed to anything systematic. But I don't give any more credit for a big Game 7 than a big Game 1 of the World Series, for example.

Murphy put it well: A lot of us think that the incremental extra IP are much harder to throw.
Maybe it's another misunderstanding, but are you not implying that Waddell was a 170 ERA+ P in a great year who could have kept that up with the extra IP (relative to the league)?
Some of us are saying, no, he could not have done that. That's why a 155 ERA+ leading the league in IP can be as or more valuable than a 170 that is 15th in IP(wildly rough example, don't take too literally.)

Speculation, sure, but we are saying that IP always take a toll, in-season and career. Getting to pitch less relative to your peers makes your ERA+ higher, and to ignore that, or to underplay it, is to miss something.

No offense intended.

I confess to understanding rawagman :)

--

Joe, I understand your point in that a win is a win in April or September, but there is a sense in which they are different, and I would argue that 'red herring' is too strong a term.

All April games are "pennant" important, because unless you are the 2006 Royals, your team has a chance to win. Still, managers aim for the long-term good by resting guys they believe need it.

In September, workloads get tossed out. And if you can't play today, your loss is magnified. Especially if there's a series against your pennant rival - those games are essentially worth double. Now, it's true that in hindsight the games you played back in April vs. that rival were also worth a lot, but you didn't manage that way at the time. So when a manager sets up his rotation so his stud can face a rival, or work on short rest, or relieve 4 days in a row, and he does well, that DOES have extra value in my book.

What size parachute did you lay flat?

And what color is it?

In September, workloads get tossed out. And if you can't play today, your loss is magnified. Especially if there's a series against your pennant rival - those games are essentially worth double. Now, it's true that in hindsight the games you played back in April vs. that rival were also worth a lot, but you didn't manage that way at the time. So when a manager sets up his rotation so his stud can face a rival, or work on short rest, or relieve 4 days in a row, and he does well, that DOES have extra value in my book.

Put a number on it. How much less often do you think a manager plays a sub-optimal lineup in April or May versus September? And is that really good managing, or is it just what the book says managers ought to do. I recollect a recent study suggesting that position players need as few as one day off a month to remain fresh in September.

Either way, however, you're honoring usage versus player. A dude gets more September starts at the expense of april starts because Ron Gardenhire tells him, and that makes it a HOM-worthy feat? I'm dubious.

P.S. Murphy, Mister, and others who count articles: please count this "one" as four.

But only two and two if you count serious contributions and wisecracks separately.
--

I AM NOT DOCKING ANYONE.
. . .
Someone please tell me they understand me.

I understand what you are staying. In #103 (repeated in part below) I put "docks" in quotation marks because it is a convenient shorthand for ranking a full career (eg, Jim Bunning 1955-1971) lower than a subset career that differs by missing some season/s (Bunning 1955-1970 or Bunning 1955-60, 62-71) but is identical for the seasons that it includes at all.

Anyone who uses a sum-of-seasons career rating as the sole basis for ranking is simply on one side of this matter or the other as negative values are within or outside the range of the season rating.

I suspect that anyone who uses a more complicated rating, commonly in this forum one with peak or prime components, "docks" some players for poor seasons, commonly without knowing it. Indeed, I suspect that is common even at career's end.

Joe, I understand your point in that a win is a win in April or September, but there is a sense in which they are different, and I would argue that 'red herring' is too strong a term.

I agree with TomH here and in the particular supporting argument.

more September starts at the expense of april starts

In terms of the Hall of Fame, September 1964 probably helped Jim Bunning. Gene Mauch asked him to do the impossible; Bunning couldn't do it, but he got credit for being a trouper. I would imagine that the Hall of Merit doesn't distinguish failure at the impossible from failure at anything else.

I suspect that anyone who uses a more complicated rating, commonly in this forum one with peak or prime components, "docks" some players for poor seasons, commonly without knowing it. Indeed, I suspect that is common even at career's end.

That's why my system breaks up each player's career into individual season totals instead of lumping everything into the sum-of seasons model. What a player does in one season should be separated from his other seasons, IMO.

When you think about it, each game should be separated in the same way, but that's way too much work for me.

Bob, you make a good point; some of Bunning's 64 failure was the difficulty of the task assigned. Let me say it this way; if Bunning HAD pitched some fine games late in Sept on 2 and 3 days rest and the Phils had won, he would get a small bonus from me.

Put a number on it
Some managers play backups to keep the bench fresh. Except in a pennant race in September. They sometimes pull a SP early to keep him fresh. But not (Pedro, 2003 ALCS) when they absolutley need a win. Guys postpone a DL stint or surgery at times based on pennant race status; there's a huge difference in availability.

Casey Stengel rotated his guys, probably giving many of htem 10-20 games off a year. Semi-platooned Yogi Berra! Except when he really needed him, he "wouldn't play a game without my man" (trusting my memory, I hope the quote is exact).

Tough to "put a number" on it; I am NOT claiming that a great September makes a man HoM worthy. I'm saying I might count a key game double or even triple a "normal" one, which won't affect a player's overall score very much. It might make the difference, for me, of Bunning making the 15th spot on my ballot.

Matt, explain to me why a game in September is more important than a game in April. They both count as 1/162th or 1/154th of the season.

I literaly just lost a 300-500 word post. Maybe later, but the short answer is conventional wisdom isn't always wrong.

Tough to "put a number" on it; I am NOT claiming that a great September makes a man HoM worthy. I'm saying I might count a key game double or even triple a "normal" one, which won't affect a player's overall score very much. It might make the difference, for me, of Bunning making the 15th spot on my ballot.

I think that makes sense, Tom. For tie-breakers, I have used similar reasoning, though only by addition, not subtraction.

I literaly just lost a 300-500 word post.

I always try to copy my posts before I post so my fist wont damage my monitor. ;-)

John - that was the problem - I highlighted the text to instead of cut <ctrl + c> my thumb brushed the space bar... poof.

I think that makes sense, Tom. For tie-breakers, I have used similar reasoning, though only by addition, not subtraction.

Thats the point where your at - tie breakers. A bunch of players have roughly the same career different shapes, and in different lengths, but the differences for many of these pitcher are no longer obvious from macro analysis - your past the Warren Spahn - Harvey Haddix comparision. Now it is more 50 cents of 1, half dollar of the other.

That's why my system breaks up each player's career into individual season totals instead of lumping everything into the sum-of seasons model. What a player does in one season should be separated from his other seasons, IMO.

Which brings me to a question that has vexed me of late.

Let's say that Max von Sidelines plays ten years and so does Slim Frickins. They play the same positions. They both have 200-210 WS total.

In Max's three best years he nets 30 WS each year for 90 at his peak.
In Slim's three best years, he nets 27 WS each year for 81 WS at his peak.

Max plays in a league (probably the late 1920s AL) where the league-leader has 40 WS each year. So Max is worth 75% of the best player in his league.

Slim plays in a league (probably in the 1960s AL) where the best player has 30 WS eaach year. So Slim is worth 90% of the league's best player even though he's got a peak that's 10% lower than Max.

The way I've all along been looking at things, Max is a superior candidate to Slim. I'm not sure that he is any longer. Does pennants added address this? Does anyone have a system that addresses this? Is it worth even worth addressing? I'd guess this same kind of thing happens with WARP as well. Even though it doesn't account for wins, it does account for runs, which, like wins are finite for each team.

[I'm not disguising real players with those names, but I wouldnt be surprised if these pretend guys were close to Riggs Stephenson and Tommy Tresh.]

I think likely many of address this with our intent to balance era representation. If Max and Slim really existed, using only WS to vtoe for the HoM would result in lots of players in Max's league already elected, and few from Slim's. So there would be a push to honor Slim as the Xth best of his day, as opposed to Max. This is some of what has hurt Waddell.

Good point Doc. Of course you would have to look at say the top N or N%, one players obviously is too small a sample. Fo rpitchers I think we do this, because otherwise pre-1920 pitchers, and especially 19th C pitchers, would dominate the HOM. However, I do htink that it was harder to dominate in later leagues than in earlier ones. Is this timelining? The earlier players still did the same versus, average, etc. right? Does this make someone like Don Mattingly better than George Sisler?

I like the idea of adjusting for this, but I feel that it would end up being similar to a timeline.

John - that was the problem - I highlighted the text to instead of cut <ctrl + c> my thumb brushed the space bar... poof.

Yeah, that certainly bites - bigtime!

Let's say that Max von Sidelines plays ten years and so does Slim Frickins.

The power of Christ compells me to ask "Where in the Wide World of Sports did you come up with those names, Eric?" :-D

Seriously:

Max plays in a league (probably the late 1920s AL) where the league-leader has 40 WS each year. So Max is worth 75% of the best player in his league.

Slim plays in a league (probably in the 1960s AL) where the best player has 30 WS eaach year. So Slim is worth 90% of the league's best player even though he's got a peak that's 10% lower than Max.

The way I've all along been looking at things, Max is a superior candidate to Slim. I'm not sure that he is any longer.

I actually do compare players to the top players at their positions and place a certain weight on that. However, I'm not 100% wedded to it. If your comparing a right fielder from the '20's to the Babe, that player will be unfairly hurt by that type of comparison.

I think likely many of address this with our intent to balance era representation.

That's how I do it. I rank players first within a decade group, and then that ranking within the group becomes Exhibit A in the total package that I use to compare players across periods.

It's unfortunate that most of our group discussions are focused on comparing players across period within positional groups, though I suppose it's handy for me because that talk gives me a second angle in addition to my primary one.

It's because I compare players within periods but across positions first that I'm so concerned about the defensive spectrum, because having a good grasp of the relative value of fielding at different positions is crucial to getting an accurate in-period ranking developed.

I'd guess this same kind of thing happens with WARP as well. Even though it doesn't account for wins, it does account for runs, which, like wins are finite for each team.

Absolutely. In fact, if you use WARP1, the effect is greater than in win shares, because win shares normalizes its values to an all-time standard on the distribution of batting, fielding, and pitching value. WARP1 lets these vary much more freely against each other, so there are huge value differences across eras. As I've been trying to bring WARP1 systematically into my rankings, I've been studying the value above replacement in WARP1 per 162 games of an average position player and an average pitcher. My study to date runs from 1871 to 1935. During the NA years due to lower replacement levels and a much higher percentage of overall value going to fielding, an average position player was 8.4 wins above replacement for 162 games. In the 1935 AL, which has the lowest percentage of value going to fielding and high replacment levels, an average position player was 5.1 wins above replacment for 162 games. A difference of that size makes any direct, simple comparison between two players from this very different eras an unreliable guide to merit.

If you look at win shares, Jim bunning and Wilbur Cooper are very similar, with a slight edge for Cooper once you adjust for WWI. If you look at WARP, it is a blowout for Bunning. Part of that is pitcher workload, although my workload calculations show the 1920s NL to be a lot closer to the 1950s-1960s than WARP seems to calculate. Another part of that is league quality, which we have debated ad infinitum. The third part seems to be defensive support (Bunning leads in DERA 4.00 to 4.15). Any thoughts on Bunning vs. Cooper? I currently have Cooper about 37th and Bunning about 17th, and am wondering whether I need to close the gap.

I like Cooper, I like Bunning. Coop's on my ballot and will fall in just a bit below Bunning (probably 6 vs 12 or something like that).

Andrew,

Your assessment seems very reasonable. I think the good Doctor is overrating Cooper somewhat.

Another similar to Bunning includes Vic Willis, who actually leads in DERA (3.98 to 4.00), but how many aught's pitchers are we going to take? (Young, Mathewson, R. Foster, McGinnity, M. Brown, Walsh)

And Eddie Plank. (Don't worry - you did get him in your post on the other thread.)

Matt, explain to me why a game in September is more important than a game in April. They both count as 1/162th or 1/154th of the season.

Yeah but-
By September you know whether the game is really going to matter or not.

By that reckoning a game in a pennant race in September is more important at the time it happens than a random game in April- but a random game in April may be more important (at the time it happens) than a game in September after the pennant race has aleady been decided (as far as your team is concerned)

20/20 hindsight years later they're all even of course...

jimd -you don't like my "style" - fair enough.

Actually, I do like your style. And your posts.
I'm really not trying to pick on you, just pursuing a pet peeve.
It's not personal. Please don't take it that way.

You lost me here.

And that's my fault. One more try at explaining my point.

Let's look at two pitchers, J.Bunning and R.Bunning. Their careers through 1967 are identical. J.Bunning has the same extended coda as Jim Bunning (in fact, he is Jim Bunning). R.Bunning has only one more season that looks just like J.Bunning's 1971, but does it in 1968. He has a very rapid decline phase. RB either retires, or goes to the minors, but is never able to persuade a team to give him another chance.

J.Bunning is clearly a better pitcher than R.Bunning, if just by a little bit. He was able to tack on almost 600 mediocre innings that were beyond the capabilities of R.Bunning, and that gives him a better career, though their peaks and primes are identical. But, if I understand your system correctly, R.Bunning would be rated higher because he had a "better" career due to higher career rates unpolluted by the mediocrity of 1968-1971.

I see this as an inconsistency. And that's all I'm trying to say.

By that reckoning a game in a pennant race in September is more important at the time it happens than a random game in April- but a random game in April may be more important (at the time it happens) than a game in September after the pennant race has aleady been decided (as far as your team is concerned)

So I think there's one more important point to make: regression to the mean.

If a team starts hot and fades in september, there's every possiblity that it was over its head for a couple months and no matter what any individual does, they can't stanch the blood when the law of averages takes over.

Same thing going the other way, sort of. A team that's on the rise due to R2M should be peaking late in the year. No one player can be fingered as the One who made the difference. In either case, a team is 16-25 players all of whom are, at any moment, above expectations, below expectations, or regressing to the mean. So while I can understand the urge to reward unsual September/October regular-season pennant-chace performance. But the larger forces out there are out there, and they don't quit working in September, and in many cases what we see as fade and surge are just teams AND individuals groping toward their innate talent/ability level.

No wait, before some wiseacre says so: players are actually all little robots or toy soldiers without any human feelings, just talent levels that I expect them, in Duquettish fasion, to play at at all times! Or better yet, they're like that NFL "simulation" game from the 1970s where you lined the little men up and the vibrator in the board made them "run"...usually backwards!

As for Bunning, Cooper, and Willis...

You all know by now that I've got a wacky little system for this pitching stuff, and it attempts to deal with issues like usage patterns and height of pitcher peaks relative to history. Cooper, as it happens, does well in my system. So does Bunning. Rube Waddell, for instance, does not.

Ain't perfect. But it was better than what I was doing...guessing.

In fact, my total system is in need of a major overhaul for all the reasons cited in the seasonal analysis stuff above.

Actually let me return for a moment to Max and Slim.

Let's say that Max and Slim are at the same position AND are near contemporaries.

In fact if Slim is in the AL of the mid 1960s (where Mickey Mantle once led the league at 29 WS), then Max is in the late 1960s AL (where Yaz tossed up a 40 WS year). In other words, without the cross-generational and cross-positional concerns in play, what does our 30/40 vs 27/30 scenario mean?

Is 30 win shares just 30 win shares? Or is it really 75% of 40?

No wait, before some wiseacre says so: players are actually all little robots or toy soldiers without any human feelings, just talent levels that I expect them, in Duquettish fasion, to play at at all times! Or better yet, they're like that NFL "simulation" game from the 1970s where you lined the little men up and the vibrator in the board made them "run"...usually backwards!

Making a prememptive strike, I see, Eric. ;-)

I think the answer to Chaleeko's question lies in standard deviations from the mean. If I could get RSAA/RCAA adjusted for stdev, that would be ideal.

J.Bunning is clearly a better pitcher than R.Bunning, if just by a little bit. He was able to tack on almost 600 mediocre innings that were beyond the capabilities of R.Bunning, and that gives him a better career, though their peaks and primes are identical. But, if I understand your system correctly, R.Bunning would be rated higher because he had a "better" career due to higher career rates unpolluted by the mediocrity of 1968-1971.

What if in your example J Bunning wasn't able to tack on 600 mediocre innings- what if instead he tacked on a few hundred Lima Time type innings, or 2002-2005 Scott Erickson type innings.

On the one hand, up to 1968 J Bunning and R Bunning were even, but after that J [Lima] Bunning managed to have negative (sub replacement level) value. Does that make J worse than R overall?

jimd - no offense taken. But thanks to all for their encouragement.
Just trying to clarify my position (maybe I hope this will sway others to my way of thinking;-)

In the case you showed, J. Bunning gets higher points.
I use rate, but not only.
I use it to help balance the peak/career question.

I just have a fondness for those players who had high peaks in generally effective careers.
My system hurts players who had average peaks, but very good primes and careers and healthy counting stats.
For me, that is where Jim Bunning falls.
So did Robin Roberts. But note I didn't punish him. I just didn't have him right at the top. Only took him 5 years in my system. That's not really that bad, is it?

This system caused me problems with Dick Redding. At first, I really looked at him as a high peak guy. So high, I got him straight to my PHoM.
But then I realized a rookie error and looked into his career and more closely at his peak. And he dropped. Right now he's at 24.
Maybe I dropped him too far. Some would say I was right the first time, others that I didn't drop him far enough.

Anyway, my reasearch potential is limited based on university requirements and my real job.
This weeks question/research will be taken re-weighing my ballot spots for my current 10-13 of Beckley, Stephens, Kiner and Roush.

Is that order correct?

Stay tuned.

John - I got in the group. Thanks.

Howmuch of the difference between WARP's 1 and 3 is simply an adjustment in average between Max and Slim's eras? If Max is average and the average player is worth 3 fewer wins in Slim's era, one can see why WARP would dock him so much between 1 and 3.

In the case you showed, J. Bunning gets higher points.

Then it's all just a misunderstanding.

I just have a fondness for those players who had high peaks in generally effective careers.

Me too, though I care less about the rest of the career being effective. Past support includes players like Caruthers, Rube Foster, Jennings, and Ferrell. The good parts matter, the bad parts don't.

Check out Early Wynn and his thread for more on this topic. Wynn had a decline phase that was twice as long as Bunning's. And a long preliminary phase as a prospect that maybe should have been in the minors.

what if instead he tacked on a few hundred Lima Time type innings

L.Bunning ("Lima-Time" Bunning) couldn't be worse than R.Bunning, though he also might not be better. If all of LB's seasons were below replacement, well, the guy in the minors or forced to retire is not likely to be better. And it's not LB's fault that the team is willing to still play him at that level of performance. Unless someone has evidence that LB is deliberately throwing meatballs for some reason, he just gets zero credit.

If all of LB's seasons were below replacement, well, the guy in the minors or forced to retire is not likely to be better.

Oh I wouldn't make that assumption- the team I follow has wasted many starts and innings on sub replacement pitching WHILE BETTER ALTERNATIVES WERE ALREADY ON HAND-

in Fact Lima himself has pitched many many sub replacement innings while his teams- Stros-Royals, now Mets almopst certainly had and have better alternatives- it seems to be that since Lima Time once upon a time won 20 his managers are in complete denial concerning how badly he sucks.

[Reactionary Baseball Fan/GM/Writer SOP 327: How to succinctly bring discussion of obviously washed-up veterans to cessation.]

Hey JPWF13,

[SOP 327, step 1: Assume aggressive posture.]

Ease off on Jose, OK?

[SOP 327, step 2: Rebut effetively and emphatically with strongest argument.]

He's a PROVEN, MAJOR LEAGUE VETERAN.

[SOP 327, step 3: Bring coversation to successful cessation through petty insult.]

How many Major League innings have you thrown?

[End SOP 327, resume normal baseball reactionary discussion activities]

>I just have a fondness for those players who had high peaks in generally effective careers.

ra: Don't we all. This would describe inner circle types.

The question we are all grappling with is who to elect after we're done with the high peak/effective careers.

How many Major League innings have you thrown?


Zilch, Nada, Zippo

but Lima still sucks rocks

Assessing Bunning’s Prime

On the ballot thread, Daryn asked: what’s so good about Bunning? This study provides a view of what’s good about him.

There’s been a lot of talk about the effect on Bunning’s value of his decline seasons, 1968-71, so I decided to take a look instead at Bunning’s prime: the eleven seasons from 1957, his first year as a full-time starter, through 1967. How good were these seasons, in the aggregate, in comparison to the best 11 consecutive seasons of other eligible pitchers? I’ve worked out some comparative data, using WARP runs above average as the starting point. I’ve used WARP because the normalized values make it easy to combine groups of seasons, and I’ve focused on runs above average because it leaves out controversial questions of the way WARP moves around replacement level.

The first table addresses Bunning’s effectiveness during his prime. In this table, I worked with the best 11 consecutive seasons for Bunning and all eligible pitchers who 1) received a vote in 1976 and 2) have a reasonable claim to have been full-time starters for 11 seasons consecutively, 3) pitched after 1892, and 4) spent their career in the major leagues.

I adjusted innings pitched, pitching runs above average and batting runs above replacement to 162-game seasons. These totals appear as adj. IP, PRAA, and BRAR below. I then calculated a DERA for each pitcher’s prime, and a DERA+ (DERA is set to a 4.5 r/g environment). I then added together PRAA and BRAR to get total runs above average (treating replacement level hitting as average for pitchers – I know that’s too high, but it wasn’t worth trying to adjust more finely here), and then divided RAA/11 to get an “average season” for each pitcher. Here is the table, ordered by DERA+.