Isn't it nice to have those nasty Hall of Fame debates completely resolved once and for all?

Done and done. Except this doesn't include defense or baserunning does it?

Not the most scientific evaluation system out there, but it seems to do a pretty good job of measuring the man on the street's opinion. By that I mean that if you'd asked me to rank this year's HoF eligibles off the top of my head, I'd have come up with something darn close to that last list in the article.

Holy cow, Albert Pujols.

Isn't it nice to have those nasty Hall of Fame debates completely resolved once and for all?

Just wanted to make sure everyone understands the massive level of sarcasm in the quoted statement. Fake arrogance can be a little hard to distinguish from the real thing on the Internet...

I'm used to seeing Cal ranked #1 on HOF eligible lists, but it's still surprising that he comes out #1 on a list that gives zero credit for defense and zero credit for below average seasons with the bat.

zero credit for below average seasons with the bat

zero credit for below average seasons with the bat RELATIVE to position.

I guess I don't really understand what this stat is trying to do? Is it trying to predict Hall voting? It certainly isn't measuring win contribution. Also I don't think the name of the stat is accurate, it's not really gross wins is it? Almost like trunctated wins...

The link doesn't go back to the original article, but I would point out that a run created above average doesn't have the same win impact as a run saved above average.

It's also interesting that people still use RCAP, when Lee disavowed it a year or two ago. Of course, it's also interesting that he still publishes it.

Does Sinins use a basic Runs Created formula, instead of the one that James uses in WIn Shares?

He doesn't use the Win Shares version. He uses the ones for different eras.

Thanks, studes. That's what I thought.

Just wanted to make sure everyone understands the massive level of sarcasm in the quoted statement. Fake arrogance can be a little hard to distinguish from the real thing on the Internet...

Probably a good idea, but overall your writing was of high quality; anybody intelligent would've seen it for what it was, at least.

I would have to agree with MHS, though, in that I'm not sure of the value of this stat. It's the sorta-total of goodness of a guy in his + years, if I interpret correctly, but I think I could do the same with OPS+, and I wouldn't.

I guess I don't really understand what this stat is trying to do? Is it trying to predict Hall voting? It certainly isn't measuring win contribution. Also I don't think the name of the stat is accurate, it's not really gross wins is it? Almost like trunctated wins...

I didn't want to get too much into the purpose of the stat here, since I tried to address that in the previous article and this is really just an update. But, as I said there, I think using this system (with the proper stats) does a better job of balancing a player's peak and career value than an average or replacement-level one. Other systems like JAWS have attempted to do that, but they use a rather arbitrary slice of a player's career to represent his peak. I would say that this might well be the reason that Mr. Ballgame in #2 says that it seems to show a more common-sense listing of players. The example I used in my previous article was Eddie Murray vs. Rafael Palmeiro: I think most people would say that Murray was the significantly superior player, even without delving into the steroid issue, but few average- or replacement-based stats are going to show much difference between them, either because they don't put enough weight on Murray's peak or because they discount his numbers for the bad years at the end of his career.

I didn't want to get too much into the purpose of the stat here, since I tried to address that in the previous article and this is really just an update.

I tried to follow your link, and it just took me to the article you posted yesterday, and it wasn't readily obvious how to get to the original article.

I tried to follow your link, and it just took me to the article you posted yesterday, and it wasn't readily obvious how to get to the original article.

Whoa, that's not right. Here's the correct link.

Where's Palmeiro?

I discussed Palmeiro in the previous article (and hopefully Dan will correct the link)--he comes in at 26.81. Which is rather a surprise, but it indicates how ordinary Palmeiro's peak was, and of course a stat that offered no surprises would be pretty worthless.

I don't know if it is just me but the bold and italics of the players in the lists didn't seem to take.

I also think it is pretty crazy that Albert Pujols is a no brainer HOF in this system even if he gets hit by a bus today.

I also think it is pretty crazy that Albert Pujols is a no brainer HOF in this system even if he gets hit by a bus today.

As soon as I saw that, I thought "If Albert Pujols is hit by a bus today, he'd be Albert Belle", and that's fairly true in this system. Really, though, 5 years as the best or second-best hitter hitter in the league should get you some HOF consideration.