Chipper Jones leads at third but doesn't make the top 10 overall? That is strange. Larry has been easily the best player in baseball so far.

I wondered about that myself. I think missing 2 games maybe limits the numbers (McLouth has 19 more AB's already, or about 100 over a season)?

Tooolsy = WPA whore.

And that's why someone was correct in saying Chipper just doesn't get the respect he deserves. He's bested Utley thus far in 2008, has posted up an absurd offensive line for really the past 2 and 1/2 seasons, his defense is actually underrated (he's got a rep for being below average at 3B when, in fact, he's probably around or a little bit better than average), and continued his hot hitting yesterday.

Its almost as if Chipper knows he has to be hitting over .400 come July in order for the media to start covering his achievements. Meanwhile, if David Wright or Chase Utley have a 3 game hitting streak, there are 14 articles about how they are the best hitters on earth.

I've said it before and I will say it again. If I were given a team and was asked to pick players for each position, there is no doubt I would pick Wright over Chipper as a play for the future. But there is also no doubt as to who the better hitter is right now, and it ain't Wright.

Chipper doesn't get the respect he deserves because Win Shares apparently ranks him too low? Hmm.

BTW, I assume that all Braves players are rated low because they are significantly underperforming their pythagorean record.

There shouldn't have been any doubt about him being a first ballot HOF, but if there was Larry is in the process of removing it this year.

Am I missing someone or should he right now be considered the 3rd best 3B of alltime after Schmidt and Brett? I'd take him over Matthews, Robinson, and Boggs.

Am I missing someone or should he right now be considered the 3rd best 3B of alltime after Schmidt and Brett? I'd take him over Matthews, Robinson, and Boggs.

I'd take Mathews over Chipper - Mathews was more dominant in his time than Chipper in his. I might put Chipper 4th, although I haven't thought about it enough.

Yeah, Mathews is still ahead of Chipper (for now) . Eddie got the early start, while Chipper's was delayed due to injury. Mathews had 10,000 career PAs; Jones has 8,200 so far. They're fairly equal as hitters. Mathews was probably a little better with the glove.

Santo is also in the discussion. Chipper has been a more consistent hitter, while Santo had a far better glove. Santo also got the early start, but his career ended early. We'll see how Chipper ages, but for now, he is showing absolutely no signs of aging!

Mathews was a spectacular third baseman, particularly for his times. He had 450 Win Shares; Chipper has 336. Boggs had 394 and Santo had 324.

That's what I hate about Win Shares. Assume Chipper and Wright finish the year with essentially identical stats, hitting, fielding, and somehow playing time, and that the Mets and Braves are both 90-win teams.

Except, the Mets overperform and get 92 wins, while the Braves underperform and get 88 wins.

Guess who gets more Win Shares.

EDIT: I realize what it tries to measure, but I like stats that adhere to the laws of commutativity.

I hope Chipper Jones HOF chances do not rest on Bobby Cox's inability to manage in a 1 run game (Braves record this year in non 1 run games: 17-6; Braves record in 1 run games: 0-9)

Manny Ramirez has been twice as good in the field as Johnny Damon? Uggla as good in the field as Utley? Chipper has less offensive Win Shares than Burrell despite a .200 point advantage in OPS in a more pitcher friendly park in the same amount of PAs. I've never seen a stat that is so contrary to common sense about so many things be consistently accepted as a useful way to evaluate players. At least WARP gets offense right.

Also from the article:

Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays and Dutch Zwilling: the only players to end their careers in the same city, but with different teams.

How can this possibly be true. When you consider how much of baseball history had 3 teams in NY, 2 in StL, 2 in Chi, 2 in Boston, 2 in Philly.

In fact, I was thinking about Jimmy Foxx, and sure enough began with the A's and ended with the Phillies.

Cowboy, there is logic behind all the stats you cite. For instance, Ramirez has played significantly more innings than Damon and actually has a respectable RZR so far this year.

The key is that Win Shares goes to great lengths to match a team's wins. That's what I respect most about it. Chipper has had a great year, but he has arguably done less to help his team win than Burrell has. This is also reflected in each player's batting WPA (which, for all the criticism it receives, also adds up to each team's win/loss record).

WARP may get offense "right," as you define it, but it doesn't necessarily get results "right" (as in wins and losses). Win Shares and WPA are the only stats I know of that do. Remember, Win Shares doesn't imply that Burrell is a better batter than Jones -- just that he's contributed more to his team's wins.

How can this possibly be true. When you consider how much of baseball history had 3 teams in NY, 2 in StL, 2 in Chi, 2 in Boston, 2 in Philly.

In fact, I was thinking about Jimmy Foxx, and sure enough began with the A's and ended with the Phillies.

Strawberry. And Gooden.

How can this possibly be true. When you consider how much of baseball history had 3 teams in NY, 2 in StL, 2 in Chi, 2 in Boston, 2 in Philly.

I wondered about that, too, Rodder. It's not clear, but maybe the author meant that the player actually played in that city in his first and last game, instead of just for the team of that city.

In fact, I was thinking about Jimmy Foxx, and sure enough began with the A's and ended with the Phillies.

Yogi Berra is another. I think we could go on and on. Dwight Gooden. Darryl Strawberry. Is there something in the wording I'm missing?

WARP may get offense "right," as you define it, but it doesn't necessarily get results "right" (as in wins and losses). Win Shares and WPA are the only stats I know of that do. Remember, Win Shares doesn't imply that Burrell is a better batter than Jones -- just that he's contributed more to his team's wins.

Don't those measures start out with the number of wins a team has and then hands out Win Shares accordingly?

They're fairly equal as hitters.

I think Mathews was a better hitter than Chipper. An OPS+ of 145 is not the same thing across all eras. Mathews was in the top five in OPS+ virtually every year - nine times in all. Chipper has been in the top five only twice in his entire career.

Don't those measures start out with the number of wins a team has and then hands out Win Shares accordingly?

Not sure which measures you're referring to, but WARP doesn't. Win Shares and WPA do.

Larry has been easily the best player in baseball so far.

Utley > Chipper

By the way, I wonder if Billy meant to add "same league"? Would that solve the issue?

By the way, I wonder if Billy meant to add "same league"? Would that solve the issue?

No. Ruth and Aaron weren't in the same leagues.

For instance, Ramirez has played significantly more innings than Damon and actually has a respectable RZR so far this year.

I noticed that, has John Dewan told his stringers to stop counting balls hit off the wall against Fenway leftfielders?

I assume that all Braves players are rated low because they are significantly underperforming their pythagorean record.

Jones gets a slight knock for his team underperforming, but he also gets knocked because he doesn't do too well on the "Clutch" stat that is used to figure Runs Created -- Jones is a -2.2. He also only has .5 Fielding Win Shares.

Manny Ramirez, RZR:

2004 .578
2005 .527
2006 .643 (all RZR for LF are much higher in 2006 than before, likely zones redefined)
2007 .684
2008 .893

I don't think they are counting wallballs anymore. A good change, IMO. Take those out and you might need a park factor in the other direction for Fenway, since they have less ground to cover.

He doesn't have range, getting only 1/4 the OOZ plays that Carl Crawford makes, but Manny is catching everything he's supposed to this year.

Jay Jaffe reviewed Chipper's HOF chances and it was a good article until he trotted out BPro's dumb assessment of Jones fielding ability.

Look, I don't claim to know much, but I have watched several thousand professional ballgames in my lifetime and I would bet my ranch to the chewing gum Will Carroll sticks behind his ear that Chipper Jones was an average defensive third baseman for the bulk of his career.

Look, last year we all saw bad in Ryan Braun. Right? I love Ryan like a son but let's be blunt. In 2007 he was horrid defensively. Awful. Putrid. By BPro's work Jones has been in that neighborhood multiple times his career.

That's ridiculous. Who here as a baseball fan wouldn't have noticed something like THAT?

Nobody, that's who.

Chipper has had a great year, but he has arguably done less to help his team win than Burrell has.

I can't think of a sillier thing to write. That's way up there. He's done everything except sell hotdogs between innings.

That's ridiculous. Who here as a baseball fan wouldn't have noticed something like THAT?

In Braves' circles, BPro's defensive ratings of Chipper have been a constant source of frustration/amusement. They are so obviously wrong but BPro just keeps pushing them out there every year as if they have meaning. Chipper is decent enough out there. Balls he gets to he handles well, but he doesn't have that much range. He's pretty average.

He was a pretty lousy outfielder though, I'm glad that's over.

Chipper goes to his left ok, has a strong arm and is fairly athletic. He ain't Rolen nor was he Carney Lansford. Or Bobby Bonilla.

As Bill James put it so succintly, Bobby Bonilla was a third baseman in the same sense that if you stuck someone in a spacesuit, flew them around the earth and then declared them an astronaut. Bobby was THERE at third base. But he wasn't any type of third baseman.

And BPro wants us to believe THAT was Chipper Jones?

Bah..............

Hasn't Manny had a terrible road RZR in the past? Is that different now?

Don Kessinger made his debut with the Cubs in Wrigley Field, and played his final game at Comiskey Park as a member of the White Sox.

I'm sure there are many, many more....

Yeah, I emailed the author and he admitted his mistake. I'll post something in the article. Still a fine read.

I can't think of a sillier thing to write. That's way up there. He's done everything except sell hotdogs between innings.

Oh, I can think of many sillier things to write. I've probably written many myself. But that's an entirely defensible statement, based on when he's had his hits.

This is interesting: the A's are tied for the best record in the AL at 22-14. Their players appear precisely zero times on studes' lists. Talk about a team effort.

Their nominal starting nine (Barton, Ellis, Crosby, Hannahan, Thomas, R. Sweeney, Cust, E. Brown, and Suzuki) have accumulated 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, and 1 WSAB.

Their starting rotation (Blanton, Duke, Gaudin, Eveland, and Smith) are at 1, 1, 1, 2, and 2.

Their bullpen (Street, Embree, Brown, Casilla, Devine, and Braden) are at 0, 1, 2, 2, 2, and 0.

That's some kind of balance, with contributions up and down the roster.

But that's an entirely defensible statement, based on when he's had his hits.

Nah, it's just a Win Shares artifact. The Braves are significantly under the pythag projection, so there are too many good offensive performances and not enough actual wins (and therefore win shares) to go around. It's one of the thousand reasons win shares should not really be looked at in season. But, I know, space to fill...

Nah, it's just a Win Shares artifact.

Not really. If you use the methodology I outlined in this article, you find that Chipper has had his best production in blowouts, while Burrell has had his best production in close games. Burrell has 34 game-adjusted base runs vs. 31 for Chipper. Nothing to do with Win Shares.

Add in Burrell's amazing production with RISP (even better than Chipper's amazing production), and you have a defensible difference between the two.

This is interesting: the A's are tied for the best record in the AL at 22-14. Their players appear precisely zero times on studes' lists. Talk about a team effort.

Consistent averageness is the new inefficiency? It seems to be. No one on the team is a star this year, but they all bring something to the table and so far it's meshed productively (though I don't know how long some of the RISP luck is going to last). It's fascinating. Greg Smith is probably the best player on the team so far. Greg Smith! And they're 22-14! Freakin bizarre.

But, I know, space to fill...

By the way, I don't think I've ever written anything to just "fill in space" -- except maybe for some of my quirkier "Ten Things" items. And I still think Sudoku was worth it.

And I still think Sudoku was worth it
I went through a three month period at the end of last year where all I could think of was Killer Sudoku. I exaggerate slightly, but... After I got the hang of it, I only did the hardest ones. Don't tell anyone, I even did some in work, I was so obsessed.
I haven't done any in about 3 months -- the next time I have time to kill I'll have to pick one up and see if I still can do it.

He's done everything except sell hotdogs between innings.

I would buy a hot dog from Chipper Jones. And cherish it forever and ever.

I like win shares, but it's a stat that really needs a significant number of games to have any real value. Complaining about Chippers numbers after a little over a month isn't really productive.

I love the fact that it's based upon actual wins loss, basically it says that there is some stuff that pyth can't measure and that has value.

Consistent averageness is the new inefficiency? It seems to be

That was somewhat the Cardinal philosophy, with a Pujols added to the mix. Of course a few of the Cardinals are performing very well, but talent wise they were just a bunch of projected near average players. (although I would hazard a guess that both Ankiel and Ludwick will finish the season better regarded than just average)

the next time I have time to kill I'll have to pick one up and see if I still can do it.

Sudoku is great for plane trips. I use it to take a break from whatever reading I am doing.

Not really. If you use the methodology I outlined in this article, you find that Chipper has had his best production in blowouts, while Burrell has had his best production in close games. Burrell has 34 game-adjusted base runs vs. 31 for Chipper. Nothing to do with Win Shares.

That may be true in this case, but the Win Shares method is still problematic. The Braves have 20 pythag wins but only 17 real wins. So Braves players are going to be debited 9 win shares compared to what their performances would normally earn. How is this penalty distributed? Proportional to how many pre-penalty win shares you earned. So Chipper will get a disproportionately large penalty for the Braves' bad luck (or poor clutch performance) because he's played well. That makes no sense at all. The luck/clutch factor should be based on playing time, if it isn't based on actual clutch performance.

The luck/clutch factor should be based on playing time, if it isn't based on actual clutch performance.

I agree, Guy. Sounds like you're a big supporter of WPA. :)

But my point is that Chipper's relatively low ranking is justified in this case.

I like win shares, but it's a stat that really needs a significant number of games to have any real value.

I don't understand this point of view. Win Shares is a measure of actual production, contribution to a team's wins. It always has value, even after one game. You're right that more games will make it more predictive, but prediction shouldn't be the point of a stat like this. It's 100% retroactive and, IMO, the absolute right kind of stat to update early and often.

It depends what people are looking to measure... what I'm more concerned about is how a player will perform in my Strat league, so I don't give a damn whether a player is superclutch, or their team won an extra 10 games for some reason.

For that reason, WS doesn't tell me anything useful. Especially if you consider most of these skills aren't repeatable.

I don't understand this point of view. Win Shares is a measure of actual production, contribution to a team's wins. It always has value, even after one game. You're right that more games will make it more predictive, but prediction shouldn't be the point of a stat like this. It's 100% retroactive and, IMO, the absolute right kind of stat to update early and often.

think about a first week into the season and a team is 1-4, due to horrible starting pitching, but in the meantime a MVP level guy has posted 5 hrs, 8 rbis, is batting .450 etc, and doesn't get many win shares because his team didn't perform well. Stretches like this will probably even out through the season, but early on it's exaggerrated.


I don't mind seeing win shares as the season progress's, in fact I love your site for putting them up, but anyone that is looking at them have to realize that they can get exaggerated in the early part of the season. Heck if the Burrell plays exactly at his level for the next week and his team loses 7 in a row his actual win shares would probably go down, it's not a true counting stat that masquerades as a counting stat.

what I'm more concerned about is how a player will perform in my Strat league,

Yeah, you shouldn't care about Win Shares.

think about a first week into the season and a team is 1-4, due to horrible starting pitching, but in the meantime a MVP level guy has posted 5 hrs, 8 rbis, is batting .450 etc, and doesn't get many win shares because his team didn't perform well.

Have you played with the data to see if that's true? My gut instinct is that it isn't -- that player will receive just as many Win Shares as he would for a good pitching team, which James kind of "proved" in his book. I don't see why having less games in the data would make this happen.

Sounds like it might be a good angle to investigate.

I haven't played with the data but I do remember comments from a couple years ago when you first started putting up the data that it was true. And it may be that what was said is that player A win shares went down after a subpar week and I remembered it as being different. I probably should have said that the ability of win shares being able to go down at all is something that people should realize instead of thinking it as a normal raw counting stat. It's more of a rate stat with a counting number attached (eqr is similar I imagine)

damn I didn't read the comment of mine that you quoted, assumed it was the other comment. in the example you posted yep, I'm pretty sure it's true, his team earned one win shares at best he could get one whole win share but since there are no negative win shares he still has to split them up with the rest of the team, a couple of relievers who pitch shutout innings, another guy on his team with a few good games offensively and a couple of really, really crappy starting pitching and it seems there is no way he'll get the number of win shares that if he posted the same numbers for a team going 4-1 with average offense and pitching overall.

Bill James himself has said that win shares has very little meaning on a game to game basis or after a very small number of games.

How is this penalty distributed? Proportional to how many pre-penalty win shares you earned. So Chipper will get a disproportionately large penalty for the Braves' bad luck (or poor clutch performance) because he's played well.

That makes Ayn Rand cry.

The Braves are significantly under the pythag projection, so there are too many good offensive performances and not enough actual wins (and therefore win shares) to go around

.

As of today, the Braves are four wins under their Pythag in terms of Win Shares methodology, roughly those four wins translate into 12 Win Shares to be spread over the entire roster -- proportional to performance. While that is problematic, at the very most at this time in the season, Jones gets shortchanged 1 or 2 WS --- it could very well be less than that; I don't feel like running the math.

Jones lags in Win Shares compared to other leaders mainly for two reasons:

1) His Runs Created gets docked -2.2 runs in situational hitting (James' measure of situational hitting is primitive).

2)He's only accrued .5 Defensive Win Shares (in comparion, Troy Glaus is a full DWS ahead of him). In Batting Win Shares, Jones ranks ninth in the majors, even with the RC dock.

I went through a three month period at the end of last year where all I could think of was Killer Sudoku. I exaggerate slightly, but... After I got the hang of it, I only did the hardest ones. Don't tell anyone, I even did some in work, I was so obsessed.
I haven't done any in about 3 months -- the next time I have time to kill I'll have to pick one up and see if I still can do it.

"Greater Than" Killer Sudoku (scroll to the bottom here) is the greatest invention of this century.

Given a catcher and a 1B with identical hitting stats (including clutch), and all other factors remaining the same, do they get the same amount of offensive win shares?

If you have 9 hitters who play every day, and have identical hitting stats, they would equally split the 52% (or whatever number) of the team's win shares?

That makes Ayn Rand cry.

Then it's worth shouting from the rooftops.

"Greater Than" Killer Sudoku
I struggled through a couple of easy ones but I hadn't had any "Aha" moments where I felt like I discovered a new strategy yet.
What was great about KS is that I probably had 10 "Aha" moments along the way where I found a new strategy.

...since there are no negative win shares

There are negative Win Shares in THT's Win Shares. I think your assumptions are off. In general, Burrell will add WS in that scenario, even if the pitching stinks for the next week. That is, if my old memory cells are still working properly. I tested this several years ago.

Given a catcher and a 1B with identical hitting stats (including clutch), and all other factors remaining the same, do they get the same amount of offensive win shares?

Yes. The position adjustment occurs in the fielding stats.

If you have 9 hitters who play every day, and have identical hitting stats, they would equally split the 52% (or whatever number) of the team's win shares?

Yes. Hitting stats include situational hitting.

JP, the pythagorean impact is bigger than you imply (certainly more than the impact of his "clutch" hitting), but it appears to be warranted in this case, as I've said. The other factor is that Jones has missed over 10% of his team's games. Burrell, as an example, hasn't missed any.

I probably should have said that the ability of win shares being able to go down at all is something that people should realize instead of thinking it as a normal raw counting stat. It's more of a rate stat with a counting number attached (eqr is similar I imagine)

I agree with this. Did you know that Runs Created can go down? I believe WARP can, too. Any run creation stat that includes outs or appearances can go down.

If you like Sudoku, you'll probably like this.

I'll put it this way: even for the hardest sudoku I use pen, but that stuff, for the harder ones I use pencil.

Separate note: when mrsidiom was in the hospital, I'd do sudoku before going to sleep. It gave my mind something to focus on instead of worrying. When my eyes could no longer focus on the page, I'd set the book aside, shut the light out, and almost instantly fall asleep.

There’s Chase Utley, and there is everyone else. Utley is batting .351/.429/.746, leading the majors in slugging.

Let's see, according to the Astros' official website, here is Lance Berkman's current line:

.361/.441/.754

Sadly, it is all too common for an Astro's accomplishments to go unnoticed outside the Texas Gulf Coast.

I struggled through a couple of easy ones but I hadn't had any "Aha" moments where I felt like I discovered a new strategy yet.
What was great about KS is that I probably had 10 "Aha" moments along the way where I found a new strategy.

My experience has been the opposite - KS puzzles are either too easy or completely impossible for me, but GT is right in my wheelhouse for being challenging but doable, and has much more variety (for me). If you want me to walk you through the current one on that page I'd be more than happy ;)

Let's see, according to the Astros' official website, here is Lance Berkman's current line: .361/.441/.754

Good grief. Lots of people here feeling sorry for their favorite players. My stats were as of yesterday, when Utley was slightly ahead of Berkman in SLG.

I agree with this. Did you know that Runs Created can go down?

nope didn't know that, I knew that rc/27 could go down, but never really studied the rc stat other than acknowledged that it included total bases, walks etc.

I'm a huge fan of Paint-by-Numbers. Although I probably shouldn't do them all in pen, I usually do. I just don't like pencils. It does mean some get abandoned partway through, and some have mistakes I was able to work around.

I do SuDokus on the train, but the harder ones usually wind up with me making the grids look lousy by making notes.

Did you know that Runs Created can go down?

Every Oriole fan understands Runs Destroyed.