Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Thursday, November 25, 2004

Pennants Added 2.0 (updated for the 1949 ballot)

I’ve updated the Win Shares version of Pennants Added. For an explanation of the methods, try this thread.

I’m going to list players by position. If someone is missing that you’d like to see added, just let me know.

One other fix for 2.0 - I’ve updated the team games to team decisions. Since we are using Win Shares, it doesn’t matter if a team played 158 games, if they went 82-70, the player’s total should be based on 152 prorated to 162.

There will be a separate thread for pitchers. Click into the discussion for the results.

* - estimated Negro League numbers

C                     PenAdd WSaR   WS  WARP3
Deacon White (3B)      1.208  331  500   84.4
Cal McVey (1B/3B)       .891  228  320   34.0
Gabby Hartnett          .845  244  342  110.1
Buck Ewing (1B/3B)      .806  229  331   83.4
Mickey Cochrane         .741  209  292   88.6
Biz Mackey (3B/2B)*     .593  178  292
Roger Bresnahan (CF)    .585  170  249   57.2
Wally Schang            .572  174  262   70.6
Charlie Bennett         .531  154  239   68.4
John Clapp              .509  147  230   38.6
Deacon McGuire          .399  124  232   47.1
Duke Farrell (3B)       .395  121  214   57.0
Ray Schalk              .394  120  206   65.8
Jack Clements           .361  110  185   42.7
Johnny Kling            .346  103  170   47.8
Chief Zimmer            .339  106  181   56.3
Wilbert Robinson        .189   60  143   23.0

1B                    PenAdd WSaR   WS  WARP3
Cap Anson              1.895  516  752  127.7
Lou Gehrig             1.508  388  518  142.0
Dan Brouthers          1.327  355  487  102.5
Roger Connor           1.304  350  505  119.7
Mule Suttles (LF)*      .821  232  371
Jake Beckley            .719  215  369   82.5
Joe Start*              .715  207  342   36.0
Bill Terry              .704  199  294   78.1
George Sisler (P)       .667  190  317   80.1
 George Sisler (non-P)  .645  184  309
Frank Chance (C)        .656  185  257   54.8
Ed Konetchy             .632  185  308   70.6
Jack Fournier           .573  163  245   55.2
Jim Bottomley           .553  162  274   63.3
Harry Davis             .543  159  269   52.2
Joe Judge               .523  160  286   68.2
Dave Orr                .492  135  191   34.6
George Kelly            .389  116  205   45.5
Dan McGann              .381  116  200   48.0
Jack Doyle (C)          .356  109  207   38.9
Tommy Tucker            .352  103  207   27.2


2B                    PenAdd WSaR   WS  WARP3
Eddie Collins          1.695  447  612  172.2
Rogers Hornsby         1.580  408  539  151.5
Nap Lajoie             1.490  395  545  157.6
Ross Barnes            1.122  266  342   55.4
Charlie Gehringer       .952  266  404  126.6
Frankie Frisch (3B)     .874  250  386  111.8
Hardy Richardson (3B)   .805  226  342   72.6
Bid McPhee              .788  233  384   91.9
Larry Doyle             .715  205  310   59.8
Cupid Childs            .655  183  284   70.5
Johnny Evers            .633  184  286   66.2
Fred Dunlap             .629  170  254   61.8
Tony Lazzeri            .575  168  267   76.7
Buddy Myer              .551  164  273   69.4
Tom Daly (C)            .528  157  255   53.7
Del Pratt               .520  155  262   71.6
Miller Huggins          .468  140  236   65.9
Fred Pfeffer            .464  139  260   46.9
Max Bishop              .389  117  195   58.7
Bobby Lowe              .377  114  221   48.9
Kid Gleason (P)         .589  167  346   53.7
 Kid Gleason (1895+)    .161   51  154   23.9

3B                    PenAdd WSaR   WS  WARP3
Ezra Sutton            1.090  298  444   47.0
Jud Wilson (1B/2B)*     .926  263  398
Home Run Baker          .854  231  327   73.0
Tommy Leach (CF)        .784  226  355   79.9
John Beckwith (SS)*     .774  221  332
Jimmy Collins           .710  200  309   75.1
Heinie Groh             .701  196  295   79.2
Ed williamson (SS)      .630  178  283   48.7
John McGraw             .619  173  246   58.7
Pie Traynor             .605  177  287   72.3
Billy Nash              .603  176  287   58.6
Lave Cross (C)          .597  179  324   80.6
Larry Gardner           .586  173  280   63.8
Arlie Latham            .552  160  281   36.8
Denny Lyons             .542  153  229   44.9
Heinie Zimmerman        .519  150  232   44.2
Jimmy Dykes             .445  138  263   59.3
Bill Joyce              .430  124  185   40.3
Freddie Lindstrom       .408  119  201   50.9

SS                    PenAdd WSaR   WS  WARP3
Honus Wagner           2.170  544  712  179.9
George Davis (3B)      1.091  307  457  113.3
Bill Dahlen            1.052  299  452  118.5
George Wright*          .973  246  334   44.3
Joe Cronin              .839  235  353  102.6
Jack Glasscock          .813  231  367   89.8
Bobby Wallace (P)       .807  236  387  107.4
 Bobby Wallace (no-P)   .727  214  349  102.2
Hughie Jennings (1B)    .658  177  257   65.7
Herman Long             .650  188  313   63.6
Joe Sewell (3B)         .631  184  294   87.5
Joe Tinker              .605  177  278   71.0
Dave Bancroft           .582  173  289   76.1
Rabbit Maranville**     .559  168  322   87.7
Ed McKean               .530  155  270   44.4
John Ward (SS/P)       1.772  425  672   79.2
 John Ward (1884+)      .516  149  249   40.6
Dick Bartell            .513  154  269   88.0   
Travis Jackson          .453  135  224   57.6
Tommy Corcoran          .353  109  247   49.7

LF                    PenAdd WSaR   WS  WARP3
Jim O'Rourke           1.484  410  604   99.8
Jesse Burkett          1.135  310  454   93.5
Fred Clarke            1.087  305  446  100.6
Ed Delahanty           1.086  291  417  104.5
Al Simmons              .971  269  398  106.6
Zack Wheat              .934  267  408   88.6
Sherry Magee            .925  258  379   78.1
Harry Stovey (1B)       .891  246  369   67.4
Joe Jackson             .885  234  314   72.8
Jimmy Sheckard          .869  245  375   90.5
Goose Goslin            .856  244  376   91.2
Joe Kelley              .844  236  357   88.5
Charley Jones (CF)**    .723  197  287   47.7
Tom York                .710  204  321   44.5
George J. Burns (RF)    .695  196  314   71.2
Heinie Manush (CF)      .653  188  300   63.0
Bobby Veach             .641  183  288   74.4
Tip O'Neill (P)         .665  182  264   34.9
 Tip O'Neill            .617  169  242   
Topsy Hartsel           .568  162  249   50.9
Elmer Smith (P)         .855  226  336   22.2
 Elmer Smith (no P)     .501  143  221
John Anderson (1B/OF)   .436  133  234   42.2
Sam Mertes (OF/2B)      .436  127  200   40.5
Chick Hafey             .433  127  196   49.7

CF                    PenAdd WSaR   WS  WARP3
Ty Cobb                2.312  592  775  191.4
Tris Speaker           1.970  509  676  182.2
Paul Hines             1.232  339  507   84.0
Billy Hamilton (LF)    1.058  286  399   96.1
George Gore             .965  261  376   83.5
Cool Papa Bell (LF)*    .854  254  441
Hugh Duffy (LF/RF)      .830  231  348   74.1
Lip Pike (RF/2B)*       .819  206  277   36.0
Pete Browning (LF)      .813  220  310   55.0
Edd Roush               .805  228  340   77.2
Jimmy Ryan (RF/LF/P)    .818  235  378   79.9
 Jimmy Ryan (non-P)     .792  229  368
George Van Haltren (P)  .908  259  412   78.7
 G. Van Haltren (non-P) .783  225  361
Max Carey (LF)          .775  226  375   93.2
Fielder Jones           .739  211  327   80.0
Earl Averill            .716  200  299   77.2
Roy Thomas              .687  193  289   69.4
Mike Griffin            .669  192  295   74.9
Wally Berger (LF)       .634  177  253   67.4
Dummy Hoy               .612  178  302   51.8
Hack Wilson (LF/RF)     .579  162  236   61.0
Chick Stahl (RF)        .529  152  235   53.3
Earle Combs             .518  151  239   55.9
Benny Kauff             .511  139  191   41.0
Lloyd Waner             .492  146  252   62.3
Jimmy Slagle (LF)       .384  113  197   40.2
Steve Brodie            .361  110  203   50.8

RF                    PenAdd WSaR   WS  WARP3
Babe Ruth (LF/P)       2.498  618  792  225.0
 Babe Ruth (non-P)     2.153  539  680
Sam Crawford (CF)      1.185  332  484  107.1
King Kelly (C)         1.083  294  420   87.1
Paul Waner             1.080  301  446  118.4
Harry Heilmann (1B)     .919  258  380   92.8
Willie Keeler           .879  248  388   97.3
Elmer Flick             .878  235  321   83.9
Mike Tiernan            .722  203  306   62.1
Kiki Cuyler (CF)        .698  200  308   82.5
Harry Hooper            .698  206  350   86.5
Sam Rice (CF)           .689  206  346   79.2
Sam Thompson            .676  192  294   79.5
Babe Herman             .555  161  245   63.6
Chuck Klein             .540  155  252   72.3
Gavy Cravath            .539  152  220   47.1
Ross Youngs             .538  152  227   55.8
Tommy McCarthy (LF)     .408  118  205   27.2
Patsy Donovan           .370  113  234   38.1
Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 25, 2004 at 11:46 AM | 180 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 16, 2004 at 08:17 AM (#1024064)
"Oh, I decide. Sign this guy for one game below average, or go into the unknown for an expected one game above average. I tell Player X to take his ball and go elsewhere, I'm not interested.

If you disagree with the above -- to show this idea in starker terms -- consider that Player X brings 24 of his friends with him. They all have their own crystal balls, and they ALL show they will perform exactly one game below average for the next 15 years. You own an expansion team with no one currently under contract. They all want 15 year guaranteed contracts with no-trade clauses. Do you sign them all? They all have "value," don't they? "

You are forgetting a very important question Philly Booster - how much is he asking for?

If he wants the league minimum, you'd be crazy not to sign him. You'd have much more left over than the other teams that have average players making market value.

Of course you wouldn't want 24 of his friends, but that's where your example leaves any semblance of reality. A GM never has to sign 25 of the same player. He puts pieces of a puzzle together - not all of the pieces need to be huge to complete the puzzle. Not all of the pieces are the same size.

But either way, signing this one guy, helps you to a pennant, he doesn't hurt you. Baseball history is littered with teams that could have won a pennant if they could have found a player one game below average to replace a terrible starting player.
   102. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 16, 2004 at 08:21 AM (#1024074)
Jake Beckley was a better than +1 several years. He was more like +2 in a typical season with a few +4 or +5 seasons too.
   103. karlmagnus Posted: December 16, 2004 at 02:00 PM (#1024506)
I'm glad I'm on the same page as the Commissioner -- makes a change from the Cruthers days!

When Hough becomes eligible, he'll very likely be on my ballot. As my placing of Cicotte shows, I operate a modest positive boost for knuckleballers -- I think they have use beyond their stats in discombobulating the opposition, and they can be very useful indeed in key games -- Exhibit A for this belief is Wakefield, 1995-2004.
   104. PhillyBooster Posted: December 16, 2004 at 04:16 PM (#1024700)
You are forgetting a very important question Philly Booster - how much is he asking for? If he wants the league minimum, you'd be crazy not to sign him. You'd have much more left over than the other teams that have average players making market value.

I think that's exactly wrong. Bringing salary into the analysis is the last thing you want to consider for HoM-worthiness. Assumedly, my Player X wants to make as much as he can, and the owner will want to pay him as little as he can.

Considering salary leads to discounting a +5 player's accomplishments if he is making +10 money. Carlos Delgado earns HoM-points for his 128 OPS+ in 2004. The fact that he made $20M, was probably only worth $8M-$10 that year, and therefore hamstrung the team, potentially preventing them from signing other players doesn't count against him.

Delgado certainly gets more credit toward a HoM career for his 2004 performance than Vernon Wells, who was about league average for about $900K, and was therefore a better bargain for his team.

I think, in order to appropriately engage in a debate about "value over replacement" versus "value over average" when measuring HoM-worthiness (for which there are certainly some good points for each side) you have to assume that the players are going to earn exactly what they are worth.

So, do you want to sign my Player X for 15 years for the exact market value of a player who plays 1 game below average per year? I say "no", because the most likely alterative is that you'll end up with a slightly above average player (making, let us assume, slightly above average money), and that will leave you just as much, if not more, payroll flexibility to put together a pennant winning team.
   105. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 16, 2004 at 04:24 PM (#1024722)
As my placing of Cicotte shows, I operate a modest positive boost for knuckleballers -- I think they have use beyond their stats in discombobulating the opposition

Wouldn't this be demonstrable in their stats? IOW, if a knuckleballer is throwing off the opposition's offense, his ERA would be affected, right?
   106. PhillyBooster Posted: December 16, 2004 at 04:47 PM (#1024792)
I think the official "knuckler theory" is that it throws off the opposing team the NEXT DAY also (as well as for any relievers who follow him), so that any time a knuckler pitches in a game that isn't the last game of a series, his team earns the advantage in the next game that is not credited in the stats to the knuckler.

I don't know if there's any data pro or con, but that's the Conventional Wisdom, at least.
   107. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 16, 2004 at 04:56 PM (#1024809)
I don't know if there's any data pro or con, but that's the Conventional Wisdom, at least.

Funny, but I never heard that theory before. Sounds like it belongs in the trash can with "pitching is 90% of baseball" and other fabled baseball axioms, but Retrosheet could prove me wrong at any time.
   108. Daryn Posted: December 16, 2004 at 07:18 PM (#1025139)
Am I the only one who thinks all Hough would have to do to make it to the HoM is get to 316-316. That's a hell of a lot of value, even at an ERA+ of 100.
   109. jimd Posted: December 16, 2004 at 07:48 PM (#1025195)
Bringing salary into the analysis is the last thing you want to consider for HoM-worthiness.

For specific ballplayers, I somewhat agree with this, though on a case-by-case basis.

OTOH, when dealing with the abstract question of measuring value, trying to figure out how performance relates to salaries in the free-agent market may be very important. Is the relationship linear? If so, then the linear value measures we use are probably on the right track. If not, then we've got a problem, because calculating Win Shares and WARPs and adding them up won't properly capture the values of the best players if their real values are non-linearly related to their performance statistics. Pennants Added is a stat that works along this direction, if I understand it correctly (still haven't had a chance to look at it in detail). Isolating a player's economic "star-drawing-power" from his baseball "star-winning-power" further complicates this issue.

Does anybody know of any books/articles that investigate this further?
   110. Jim Sp Posted: December 16, 2004 at 07:49 PM (#1025199)
Am I the only one who thinks all Hough would have to do to make it to the HoM is get to 316-316. That's a hell of a lot of value, even at an ERA+ of 100.

That sounds about right to me.
   111. PhillyBooster Posted: December 16, 2004 at 08:11 PM (#1025243)
To me, it's a question of actual replacement, not "replacement level." I understand that, in theory, if Barry Bonds retires at the end of his current contract, then the quality of the league as a whole drops, as the best player departs and #751 takes his place somewhere on the 30 teams. But, on the other hand, what are the odds that the Giants replace Bonds with a replacement level left fielder?

When looking at value, one should look to a players' "expected replacement" not some minimal replacement level that is no different from Todd Lindon or Cody Ransom -- the guy who replaced Bonds in 2004 when he and everyone else sprained their ankles simultaneously.

Hough was "average" for the Rangers in 1990, and left after the season as a free agent. The other three starters in 1990 (Ryan, Witt, and Brown) all came back in 1991, and they replaced Hough with Jose Guzman -- and above average pitcher fresh off two years on the DL.

When Hough left the White Sox as a free agent after an 'average' season in 1992, his innings were essentially taken over in 1993 by Jason Bere and Wilson Alvarez -- two 22 year old pitchers who weren't major league regulars in 1992, but who had above average years in 1993.

Between any two given seasons, approximately 1/4 of all major league players retire. They are replaced with a new quarter, who make their debut in a given year. Add to those groups players who miss mid-career seasons with injuries, those coming back from mid-career injuries, those backups who get starting jobs, and those starters who lose their starting jobs, young players who improve, and old players who decline, and you're talking about huge talent turnovers from season to season.

When Hough leaves as a free agent, and you don't have to pay him $1M anymore, you have an extra $1M to pay a new free agent, or to pay another position player if you have young rookies to take over his slot.

Now, I am certainly NOT saying that you judge a player by his ACTUAL replacement. That is far too context dependant. What I am saying is that, if you do the Hough analysis for every starting player ever, you'll find that most players get replaced as starters by players who are about average.
   112. TomH Posted: December 16, 2004 at 08:51 PM (#1025344)
Thought Experiment:

Pennants Added (PA) is a method designed to combine raw career value above replacement with an additive bonus, expressed as an exponent, for bigger years. Conceptually, there might be a better way to do this.

The toughest job for the PA approach is determining 'replacement level', the debate of which could go on ad infinitum; some feel it is near average, others a few Win Shares (WS) or WARP per year.

When I draft a simulation (SOM/APBA/SS/DMB) league team, I attempt to determine where the 'floor' (free talent) is among players. I typically come up with two 'floors'; one for starters (based on # of teams in league), and a lower one for backups (for injuries, days off, etc.).

Players who are expected to play at a level above the floor get full credit for their rate value * playing time (PT). Players who play a lot but at a rate belowthe starter's floor (Brad Ausmus) get analyzed as
'rate above replacement floor' * PT / X,
where X is something like 4; their value is only about 1/4th per PT, since they probably won't be needed to play full time, but it's still valuable to have them in case I need them on occasion.

The only people with negative value might be those Rockie pitchers whose expected ERA is worse than a free AAA call-up.

Back to the start: A strict linear career value graph looks like a straight line, diagonal upward
......./
...../
__/
Pretend I am drawing on a board. Any PT belwo floor value is counted as zero.

The PA methodology attempts to make the line more of a parabola, with a slight bend upward to reward superstar performance.
.......|
...../
__/

I propose that the 'truth' value is more like a curve that begins near horizontal at the very low WS/WARP levels, and quickly becomes more of a straight line as the player's value reaches about average, where it is clear he would have a job on most every team. Yes, you could still add a small bonus for great years, but the main bend in the curve is near the beginning, not the top end.
.........|
......./
...../
__-
Where is 'replacement level'? There is one 'replacement level' that is near where WS and WARP draw it; but the value between 0 WS/WARP and 'average' (maybe 17 WS per 650 PA or 300 IP) is far less important than once a player's value rises above average, where it should be given full credit.

Therefore, measures like RCAP should be useful tools, as long as you take away any negative seasons, and give some small credit for those years as value above replacement.

Whew! Done. For now.
   113. jimd Posted: December 16, 2004 at 11:28 PM (#1025884)
PhillyBooster and KJOK, when you guys replace your cars, give them to me. According to your theories, they have no value because they are worse than your expected replacement vehicle.
   114. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 16, 2004 at 11:42 PM (#1025943)
PhillyBooster and KJOK, when you guys replace your cars, give them to me. According to your theories, they have no value because they are worse than your expected replacement vehicle.

:-)
   115. jimd Posted: December 17, 2004 at 12:33 AM (#1026087)
You can measure "value" from any zero point you prefer to define, and league average is as arbitrary as any other point, as is "expected average starter". But that doesn't mean it really captures a player's value.

There is only one point which is not arbitrary, and that is "minimum replacement level", as defined by James and BP, etc. When your value falls below that for some length of time, you lose your job as a starter. Stay above that and you have positive value to at least one major league team. In real life this is complicated by contracts (the teams that should use you may prefer a cheaper suboptimal solution) or by non-playing considerations (a suboptimal solution may get the playing time because he's getting "valuable" experience, or because he draws more fans, etc.) so actually determining this "minimum replacement level" with precision is a problem.

How the real value above that "minimum replacement level" gets measured is open to debate. I'm sympathetic to the goal, which is trying to determine how much more valuable is significantly above-average performance when compared to somewhat below-average performance. Pennants Added would seem to imply that concentrating value into one superstar player has non-linear benefits (not to mention obvious risks). Maybe it's not fully capturing those extra benefits.
   116. KJOK Posted: December 17, 2004 at 06:59 AM (#1026909)
PhillyBooster and KJOK, when you guys replace your cars, give them to me. According to your theories, they have no value because they are worse than your expected replacement vehicle.

So you're telling me you don't replace your car until it no longer runs and you have to PAY someone to haul it off (negative value?) ;>)
   117. jimd Posted: December 17, 2004 at 07:21 PM (#1027712)
Actually, I do drive my cars into the ground (I drive 25-30K miles per year, 330K on two vehicles since 1992).
   118. Michael Bass Posted: December 17, 2004 at 09:23 PM (#1027981)
Taking the car analogy to a labored extreme.... ;)

Does a car decline in value linearly? That is to say, does every 10K mile you put on it take the same amount of value away from the car? Or does the first 10K miles take a much, much larger chunk of the value of the car than, say, the 110K to 120K move?

That's the analogy to me for baseball. The move from 110K to 120K costs you some value on the car, but not all that much (and I've never been in KJOK's court on giving no credit to average seasons). The move from 10K to 20K costs you a lot of value on the car.
   119. EricC Posted: December 18, 2004 at 05:58 PM (#1029071)
Pennants added for Pie Traynor, please, Joe.
   120. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 19, 2004 at 05:54 AM (#1030061)
"What I am saying is that, if you do the Hough analysis for every starting player ever, you'll find that most players get replaced as starters by players who are about average."

And generally, you'll also find that if the player has stayed, they could have used the resources that replaced him to replace someone else on the roster who was a worse player.

PhillyBooster, I agree salary should have nothing to do with this discussion (HoM worthiness) but I felt in your hypothetical, you opened it up to that question.

Taking salary out of it, I sign the player. His certainty allows me to forget about his position and go about getting better elsewhere. I don't think you'll be able to replace him with an average player without expending considerable resources to do so. Those resources would be better served replacing players who are worse than -1. Like the Yankees 2B situation, for example. I'd kill for a -1 there.
   121. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 19, 2004 at 06:07 AM (#1030073)
Pie Traynor updated. Not an endorsement, to say the least.
   122. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 19, 2004 at 06:12 AM (#1030080)
Charlie Hough was good in

1973 - 125 ERA+
1975 - 116
1976 - 154
1977 - 115
1978 - 107
1981 - 117
1983 - 127
1984 - 111
1985 - 128
1986 - 114
1987 - 118
1988 - 123

Saying he was only good for a couple of scattered years in the 1980s is a massive understatement.

Hough was a very good pitcher for a long time. His career ERA+ was brought down because he pitched from 1989-1994 with an ERA+ in the 90s, while eating innings for a few decent teams. I'm guessing he pitched hurt during 1979-80.

I certainly think his career will merit a look when he's eligible, though he's probably somewhat short of electibility.
   123. PhillyBooster Posted: December 19, 2004 at 08:30 PM (#1030540)

Taking salary out of it, I sign the player. His certainty allows me to forget about his position and go about getting better elsewhere. I don't think you'll be able to replace him with an average player without expending considerable resources to do so.


Perhaps I am unclear on what you mean by "resources" here.

Situation A: I have a player on my team who is at least average, I continue to expend resources -- in time, energy, scouting, training, and money -- to maintain a backup, and hopefully one or two minor leaguers who could step in.

Situation B: I don't have a good player on my team, because he has left in the offseason or is injured, or he never existed to begin with, I continue to expend all the resources I expended above, plus I probably have to go out and sign a starter, but I also have the extra money I am not paying to the starter in A, so I have more financial resources available.

As an example, in this frozen moment in time, the Phillies have offered Placido Polanco, an average (let us assume -- he is probably somewhat above average, but let us assume that I can reasonably project him to be average) second baseman, and he has not yet accepted or declined.

If Polanco declines, the Phillies can give prospect Chase Utley the lead job -- where he could either succeed or fall flat on his face -- or they could go out and get a free agent with the money they save from not paying Polanco, or they could do both by getting a platoon partner for Utley.

If Polanco accepts, then they have Polanco, and Utley is his backup, but there no money left for other options, because Polanco will get a sizeable (but fair) arbitration award.

So, at this frozen moment, are the Phillies better off with Polanco accepting or declining arbitration? The bird in hand (Polanco) or the two in the bush (prospect plus free agent)?

Is the "expending considerable resources" if he leaves more than the "expending considerable resources" if he stays? It doesn't seem like there's an obvious answer there.
   124. KJOK Posted: December 20, 2004 at 02:43 AM (#1030852)
"And generally, you'll also find that if the player has stayed, they could have used the resources that replaced him to replace someone else on the roster who was a worse player."

To pile on a little, if the player doesn't play, then in theory that FREES resources (a roster spot plus salary) that should offset any expended resources.
   125. PhillyBooster Posted: December 20, 2004 at 03:36 PM (#1031347)
That is also why it seems intuitively necessary that the replacement level for a Ken Griffey who gets injured in mid-May (freeing up a roster spot, but not salary, at a time when supply is restricted) is different from the replacement level of a, say, J.D. Drew who leaves at the end of the season as a free agent (freeing up both a roster spot and salary, at a time when supply is relatively plentiful).
   126. karlmagnus Posted: December 20, 2004 at 03:46 PM (#1031370)
This analysis suggests that the treatment should be different in 1954, when salary's not a big constraint to signing top players and all clubs have relatively equal salary budgets, to 2004, in which clubs are wildly unequal and salary's the #1 constraint. In 1954, Manny Ramirez would have been the jewel of the Red Sox lineup, in 2004, he's (wrongly, IMHO) considered a drag on it because of his contract.
   127. karlmagnus Posted: December 20, 2004 at 03:52 PM (#1031381)
Yes, OK, Ted would have been better in 1954 -- 526PA @OPS+201 vs Ramirez 2004 663PA@152. But you see what I mean!
   128. PhillyBooster Posted: December 20, 2004 at 04:13 PM (#1031419)
But also, in 1954, there was more constraint on player movement. Ramirez is equally good in 1954 and 2004, but in 1954 he would be more difficult to replace if he got hit by a bus since the market was structurally less efficient.

Also, as an addendum to Post 23, Placido Polanco accepted arbitration with the Phils, which I did not expect him to do. He is now going to be awarded about $5M next year. I am not happy about that expenditure of resources.
   129. karlmagnus Posted: December 20, 2004 at 04:32 PM (#1031472)
The option value of a 1-year award to Polanco is considerable. Without committing to him for the usual 3 year contract, the Phillies can use 2005 to find out whether Utley can make it in the big leagues, then at the end of the year either release Polanco (getting a draft pick?) or attempt to sign him to a contract. Their risk has been greatly reduced, compared with rolling the dice on Utley immediately.

Not a Phils follower, and there may be a player-related reason why this is wrong, but that's what options theory says, and it appears to make sense in this instance.
   130. ronw Posted: January 08, 2005 at 10:23 PM (#1065912)
Not that any are HOMers, but I'd like to see all HOFers we will not elect, like Lindstrom, Kelly, Travis Jackson, on these sheets.

Also, could you add Elmer Smith, Roy Thomas, and Heinie Zimmerman to the above lists? I'd like to see where they slot for PA.
   131. robc Posted: January 08, 2005 at 11:23 PM (#1065961)
Philly,

Im not sure the Ken Griffey mid-May/Drew off-season argument works. When the Reds had a mid-season 3rd base hole, they used Ryan Freel. To fill it this off-season, they signed someone worse than Ryan Freel. That implies that the off-season replacement level is lower than the mid-season. :)
   132. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 10, 2005 at 05:39 AM (#1068969)
Will do Ron (130), hopefully by Tuesday morning.
   133. Tiboreau Posted: January 10, 2005 at 06:06 AM (#1069008)
Joe, if it isn't too much, would you be able to give Frisch and Cochrane's Pen. Add., along with GVH's minus his pitching WS (much like you showed J.M. Ward's)? Much Thanks for all you've done so far!
   134. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 19, 2005 at 05:29 AM (#1087989)
Okay, need to get Lindstrom, Kelly, TJackson, Elmer Smith, Roy Thomas, Heinie Zimmerman, Frisch, Cochrane and GVH sans pitching. Hopefully I get this done tonight, but I'm going to start working on the pitchers first.
   135. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 24, 2005 at 11:00 AM (#1098670)
Page has been updated through 1943. If anyone signficant is missing please let me know.

I've separated out pitching and hitting where applicable (did I miss anyone?) and I've update for the new WARP3. At a glance, new WARP3 took some credit from fielders and gave it to pitchers. Outfielders were docked more. Pre-1920 1B actually went up a little in many instances. Other infielders dropped slightly, though some of the better defenders went up slightly.
   136. ronw Posted: January 24, 2005 at 10:30 PM (#1099733)
Besides the class of '44, missing are:

Travis Jackson
Ross Youngs

I'd also like to see Miller Huggins if possible.
   137. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 28, 2005 at 05:17 AM (#1107343)
Will do - hopefully tonight Ron.
   138. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 28, 2005 at 09:15 AM (#1107841)
Updated for the current class, as well as several missing notables, such as Ross Youngs, Travis Jackson, Harry Davis and a few others. I'm basically trying to get anyone with 200+ adjusted for schedule Win Shares in there, so if I'm missing some guys, let me know. Thanks!
   139. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 30, 2005 at 07:01 AM (#1112572)
I decided to completely overhaul my Personal Hall of Merit tonight.

My personal Hall of Merit starts in 1892 (when we should have started), electing one per year - it evens up with the real one by 1906 in terms of the number of inductees.

While doing this, I stumbled across a player that could conceivably deserve to pop back on the radar at some point here, John Clapp. He was probably the second best full-time catcher of the 1870s after Deacon White. McVey only caught about 1/3 of his time.

Translated stats for Clapp show him as somewhat similar to Thurman Munson (.275/.351/.418, vs. .305/.363/.464). Munson had a little more pop, but those stats are also adjusted for league quality, and Clapp takes a big hit there. In terms of raw EQA, Clapp is .286, Munson .279. Translated Munson is at .281, Clapp .266.

He was a pretty good catcher with a somewhat short career (10 years). He's probably not good enough to make a ballot at this point, but if you give a substantial catcher bonus, he could be of interest to you.

I estimated his WS for 1872-1875 using WARP1 adjusted to season length. From 1876-1883 this had a .96 correlation, so I figured that's good enough to estimate backwards.

Anyway, here are his seasonal WS and WSaR, adjusted to a 162 game season:

       WS  WSaR
1872   17   10
1873   19   11
1874   20   15
1875   26   18
1876   35   26
1877   28   19
1878   26   17
1879   18   10
1880   24   14
1881   15    8
1883    2    0
TOTAL 230  147


That's a really nice peak for a catcher, from 1875-1880. He was a really good player. A catcher with a .286 EQA over 10 years is nothing to sneeze at.
   140. Brent Posted: January 30, 2005 at 08:55 PM (#1113381)
Since I joined this project late (my first election was 1931), I've been concerned that I may have been overlooking some good early candidates who aren't receiving ballot support right now. Recently I spent some time searching for overlooked candidates and two outfielders came up.

Abner Dalrymple was a contemporary of Charley Jones and his OPS+ was "only" 122, but his WS defensive rating is A, which is unusually strong for a left fielder. He has some black ink (led league twice in total bases and once each in hits, runs, and home runs) and quite a bit of gray ink.

Cy Seymour is another one of those pitcher/outfielder combinations who are hard to evaluate. His 1905 season was phenomenal, but he needed at least one more big season to draw the peak voters. Again, WS rates him as an A outfielder, but mostly in center field.

Neither man will make my ballot, but both made it into my top 50.
   141. TomH Posted: February 14, 2005 at 09:50 PM (#1145252)
Pennants Added, or any other metric, depends heavily on the setting of Replacement Level

Some use 'average'. Some use .300 OWP, or the Win Shares or WARP level, or WS minus X or WARP minus Y. We all agree that there is no 'right' answer, but in every case, we are using a linear scale above our indiviudal placement of 'replacement'.

I've come to believe that the scale should NOT be linear, at least at the bottom (below average), but rather should be a square-like function (curve bending upward).

Why? Well, we mostly agree that below-average play has SOME value. But it does not, one-for-one, have as much valie as above-average play, since in some circumstances the player could have been replaced by a better one, or platooned, or confined to part-time, pinch-hitting, -running, or playing defense. If he was a pithcer, he could have been moved into slop relief, where the payback (wins) per inning is less critical.

This is easily seen in sim games, where there is the quandry of drafting a 6th starting pitcher or 4th OFer of marginal quality (for injury protection), or picking up a 50 inning reliever or fragile hitter (Griffey). There still is value in a 4.50 ERA, but the difference is smaller from 4.5 to 5.0 than it was from 4.0 to 4.5; in other words, we would all take a one 4.0 guy and one 5.0 guy over two 4.5s, right?

If I were to generate an uber-stat "Hanrahan's pennants added", I would set up a very low (Win-Share-like) bottom replacement level, but give much less than full-run (or -win) credit for the difference bewteen 'average' play and
'replacement level' play; ramping up to full credit for all play above average.
   142. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: February 14, 2005 at 10:56 PM (#1145399)
Tom, this is basically what Pennants Added does. One "10" and one "0" gets your more PA than two "5"s, for example (about 15% more, IIRC).

I also agree that setting the replacement level correctly is vital in this metric.

I'd be careful when equating real life to fantasy leagues. Fantasy leagues have the 'perfect knowledge' factor, that real GMs don't get . . .
   143. TomH Posted: February 15, 2005 at 03:29 AM (#1145865)
Joe, I see that, but what I'm looking at is a different 'break' in the scale. Maybe an exponent of around 2 instead of 1.15 early on, but leveling to 1 once league-avg performance is reached.
   144. Brent Posted: February 15, 2005 at 03:57 AM (#1145913)
TomH wrote:

If I were to generate an uber-stat "Hanrahan's pennants added", I would set up a very low (Win-Share-like) bottom replacement level, but give much less than full-run (or -win) credit for the difference bewteen 'average' play and
'replacement level' play; ramping up to full credit for all play above average.


I use a system like that, which I described in the 1939 ballot discussion thread, see # 123, # 160, and # 202.

IMO "pennants added" goes astray by weighting all teams equally, overlooking the empirical evidence that better players tend to play for better teams. This leverages the values of peak seasons, making them worth more than indicated by pennants added.
   145. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: February 17, 2005 at 02:57 AM (#1149620)
Why would better players play for better teams? I suppose better organizations will accumulate more good players, but I don't think this would impact the results that much. I'd imagine this impact is even lower since the advent of the draft.

This might have enough of an effect to nudge the Jennings' of the world a little higher, but I don't think it's a huge impact on the overall numbers.
   146. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: February 17, 2005 at 03:03 AM (#1149625)
"Joe, I see that, but what I'm looking at is a different 'break' in the scale. Maybe an exponent of around 2 instead of 1.15 early on, but leveling to 1 once league-avg performance is reached."

Tom, there is no 1.15 exponent or anything. It's just that a 10 is roughly 15% better than two 5's, that's all. The effect is definitely exponential, in the 3x the WS in a given season give much more than 3x the PA. The degree of exponentialness (cool word I invented!) is determined by the standard deviation of all teams and records (and SD's) of pennant winners.
   147. jimd Posted: February 17, 2005 at 04:19 AM (#1149702)
There is an effect that may impact Pennants Added across eras. The SD's of the team distribution varies over time. Put another way, the quality difference amongst the organizations narrows over time.

When the SD of the team distribution is smaller, players do not need to have the same absolute value for seasons to have the same pennant impact. Example: Honus Wagner/Ty Cobb/Babe Ruth have less impact in leagues where teams exist like the Braves/Senators of the 00's, A's of the late 10's and Phillies/Red Sox of the 20's. That same magnitude of season would have a larger pennant impact today (because teams that bad are much rarer).

Using only one distribution of teams across time will "reverse time-line", benefiting earlier players while hurting late 20th century players.
   148. KJOK Posted: February 17, 2005 at 05:23 AM (#1149829)
Jimd:

True, except that with expansion, as you add more teams, I believe that works in the opposite direction, so that a Wagner or Ruth in an 8 team league has much more pennant impact than a Bonds in a 16 team league? Or it's possible I don't understand Pennants Added....
   149. jimd Posted: February 17, 2005 at 07:05 PM (#1150542)
The formula for PA was published in BP's annual (IIRC, 2002 or 2003), and is heavily dependent on the SD of the team Win-Loss distribution. What I don't remember is whether it also depended on N (being the number of teams in the league). If it is, you may very well be right.
   150. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: February 17, 2005 at 10:52 PM (#1151043)
Jim - that's why I think it's much more fair to use an all-time distribution of teams as opposed to locking players in their era. Barry Bonds shouldn't get a bonus over Honus Wagner because he played in a more compact league, any more than Honus should get a bonus because he played in a weaker league (I'm not talking time-line weak, I mean 1900s NL was a weak league, relative to the AL). Any cross era analysis needs to put players on equal footing for things like that, IMO.

KJOK - If the expansion causes the distance between the best and worst teams to widen, then the PA go down. Basically, the more compact a league from top to bottom (and everywhere inbetween) the more PA per WARP or WS.
   151. jimd Posted: February 17, 2005 at 11:36 PM (#1151115)
Barry Bonds shouldn't get a bonus over Honus Wagner because he played in a more compact league

Depends on how you look at it. If a player of that magnitude plays in a parity era, his "pennants added" value IS increased. He has more opportunities to make a bigger difference in pennant races. Shouldn't that be part of his overall value?
   152. Tiboreau Posted: February 23, 2005 at 10:08 AM (#1160831)
Joe D., just wonderin' if you could give the PA for Simmons, Averill, Berger, Lazzeri, & Manush. Thanks!
   153. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: February 26, 2005 at 03:29 AM (#1166847)
I owe you guys some numbers. Hopefully I can get them in by Tuesday. If you need them, please hold off on your ballots until then, thanks!
   154. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: February 26, 2005 at 03:33 AM (#1166851)
"Depends on how you look at it. If a player of that magnitude plays in a parity era, his "pennants added" value IS increased. He has more opportunities to make a bigger difference in pennant races. Shouldn't that be part of his overall value? "

Like anything, I don't think it should be about opportunities. That's why I adjust for schedule length. I think it should be about taking players out of their specific time and place (when it comes to things they can't control, like number of teams in the league, length of schedule, compactness of team quality in the league, war, etc.) and compare them as if those things were equal.
   155. jimd Posted: February 26, 2005 at 04:45 AM (#1166940)
Actually, I think I agree with you in principle, but disagree on PA's implementation. I think there needs to be a adjustment based on the local distribution of player seasons to adjust for the fact that big seasons were much easier to attain in the weaker quality leagues of the past vs the much more talent laden leagues of today. Otherwise, I think that PA will "reverse time-line" because it was easier to stand out against inferior competition.
   156. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: March 03, 2005 at 12:15 AM (#1175984)
Hey guys, I know I still owe you numbers, been really busy at work, hopefully tomorrow - just thinking I can send the spreadsheet if someone wants to update the numbers themselves if you don't like waiting for me . . . let me know if you want to volunteer.

It would help if you have:

1) the Stats WS Digital Update (you'll know what this is if you have it)

2) AOL Instant Messenger so I can walk you through it real quick.

Let me know if you have interest . . . it's not that tough to do, but I've just been pretty swamped of late . . . Once you know what you are doing, it takes about 5 minutes to update each player, a few more if he played for a bunch of different teams or multiple teams in a season a few times . . .
   157. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: March 03, 2005 at 12:20 AM (#1175991)
Jim - just saw your comment - I can see what you are saying there - that's why I generally use a timeline effect as a tie-breaker. I don't think the impact is huge, but it is there. But for the people it most affects (guys like Wagner, Ruth, Mantle, etc.) it doesn't matter, they are going in anyway whether you give them 50 or 45 WS a year. And the lower the WS total, the less the impact is, so where a 50 WS player might get an extra 5 WS a year (just hypothetical) a 30 WS might only be getting 2 or 3 (since he doesn't stand out from any crowd as much).
   158. KJOK Posted: April 06, 2005 at 11:30 PM (#1237012)
Joe - Any update? ;>)
   159. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 07, 2005 at 09:32 AM (#1238186)
Jeez, thanks for the reminder KJOK. I cannot do it now, due to the file being on my laptop. I will update it the next time I'm online with the laptop. Sorry - you did the work and forgot to post it . . .

--Joe
   160. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 07, 2005 at 09:33 AM (#1238187)
Should say, "and I forgot to post it . . . "
   161. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 12, 2005 at 07:51 AM (#1250172)
Anyone know what happened with the newest iteration of WARP that caused George Sisler to shoot up about 10 WARP? Did I have a typo or something?

I just noticed the change, and it's very new (within the last two weeks, as KJOK's updates didn't have the new version) 2B were relatively unchanged but the 1B had some issues. Basically Sisler 'stole' 10 WARP from Joe Start or something. Beckley and Terry went down 2 or 3 also. Very strange goings on there . . .
   162. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 12, 2005 at 07:52 AM (#1250176)
Konetchy down 7.1 WARP3 . . .
   163. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 12, 2005 at 07:53 AM (#1250179)
But Jack Fournier up 3+ WARP3 . . .
   164. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 12, 2005 at 07:54 AM (#1250182)
Ah, I found Konetchy's missing WARP3's . . . 7 of them went to Joe Judge. I had forgot to look there . . .
   165. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 12, 2005 at 09:35 AM (#1250228)
I've updated all of the other positions. No other position has much of a change (a few 3B lost 1 or 3 WARP3) - I wonder what made them think they needed to be swapping around WARP's at 1B.
   166. EricC Posted: April 12, 2005 at 10:39 AM (#1250253)
Though I may be the only one who will ever vote for him, and PA is unlikely to help his case, could you please add Buddy Myer?
   167. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 13, 2005 at 07:31 AM (#1252444)
Buddy Myer added. He slots in nicely just behind Lazzeri. Definitely worthy of being in the discussion.
   168. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 13, 2005 at 08:25 AM (#1252467)
Heinie Manush added as well. Any other 'mid-majors' missing?
   169. ronw Posted: April 13, 2005 at 03:32 PM (#1252722)
Lloyd Waner comes to mind as a missing mid-major.
   170. ronw Posted: April 13, 2005 at 03:35 PM (#1252732)
Also Wally Berger.
   171. KJOK Posted: April 14, 2005 at 12:43 AM (#1254545)
I think Joe just accidently missed Berger. Here are his numbers:

PennAdd WSaR WS WARP3
.641 177 253 67.5
   172. DavidFoss Posted: April 14, 2005 at 02:57 AM (#1255258)
Berger's up there:

Wally Berger (LF) .634 177 253 67.4
   173. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 14, 2005 at 05:37 AM (#1255492)
L.Waner added (about right where I expected him to be too . . . )

Also added a few Negro Leaguers. Note, there are some questions about whether there needs to be a little deflation for the 30s offense there. If they change, I'll post a note here.
   174. Tiboreau Posted: May 25, 2005 at 06:20 AM (#1360069)
Joe, just wondering if you would be able to include Bill Dickey, Ernie Lombardi, Hank Greenberg, Billy Herman, & Stan Hack in preparation for '53. Much Thanks!
   175. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: May 26, 2005 at 03:36 AM (#1362398)
Hey Tiboreau - I won't be able to do this until early next week. I'm heading out of town tomorrow for the holiday weekend, won't be back until late Monday. But yeah, it's time to update this again . . . thanks for reminding me.
   176. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: March 01, 2006 at 06:07 AM (#1879175)
OK - I need to get this thing updated somehow, this post is kind of a way to put it up front and hold myself accountable for it.

But I need to try to tackle in a managable way . . . if I try to do it all at once it isn't going to get done.

I'm thinking I should update it with all of the HoMers first, and then the top candidates, based on votes and Win Shares, and then finally lesser candidates that need to get a second look.

I'll see what I can do to get cracking on it . . . since the last update was before the war, I'm going to need to make a decision there too. I'm going to probably list two numbers for war-guys. The main list, will include what I estimate their war production would have been, which I will spell out clearly, so you can adjust from there. The other number will include the numbers without any war credit whatsoever.

If anyone wants to suggest a list of who to update, prioritized how I mentioned above; feel free :-)
   177. DanG Posted: March 01, 2006 at 04:57 PM (#1879567)
I'm thinking I should update it with all of the HoMers first

IMO, the first priority should be the candidates who've established themselves in the backlog. I'll give you 15 names that have entered the ballot since 1950:

Willard Brown
Bobby Doerr
Bob Elliott
Nellie Fox
Joe Gordon
Bob Johnson
Charlie Keller
Ralph Kiner
Ernie Lombardi
Minnie Minoso
Alejandro Oms
Billy Pierce
Phil Rizzuto
Quincy Trouppe
Bucky Walters
   178. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: March 02, 2006 at 05:16 AM (#1880646)
Thanks Dan.

Keep it coming guys. ETA middle next week . . .
   179. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: March 05, 2006 at 04:25 AM (#1883843)
Others I'd suggest:
Bus Clarkson (not sure how reasonable that is)
Luke Easter (ditto)
Red Schoendienst
Bobby Avila
Vern Stephens
Dick Bartell
Don Newcombe
Sandy Koufax (like that fire's going to need more fuel)

And some of the more controversial inductees:
Red Ruffing
Joe Medwick
Richie Ashburn
   180. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: March 05, 2006 at 05:22 AM (#1883883)
Another thought: An adjusted version of Gavvy Cravath wouldn't be a bad idea.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Martin Hemner
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9129 seconds
49 querie(s) executed