|
|
|
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
Joe Dimino
Posted: November 25, 2004 at 11:46 AM | 180 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News:
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to
Mike Emeigh
for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Most Meritorious Player: 1982 Discussion (48 - 9:05pm, May 19)Last: Mr. CMost Meritorious Player: 1981 Results (11 - 3:30pm, May 16)Last: DL from MN2014 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (85 - 11:09am, May 13)Last: bjhankeMost Meritorious Player: 1981 Discussion (72 - 10:54am, May 13)Last: bjhankeMost Meritorious Player: 1981 Ballot (47 - 9:51am, May 06)Last: DL from MNMost Meritorious Player: 1979 Discussion (115 - 2:09pm, Apr 19)Last: DL from MNMost Meritorious Player: 1980 Results (10 - 12:23pm, Apr 15)Last: DL from MNGeorge Scales (70 - 10:52am, Apr 10)Last: Ivan Grushenko of Hong KongLarry Doby (94 - 12:28am, Apr 10)Last: KJOKMost Meritorious Player: 1980 Ballot (21 - 11:03pm, Apr 09)Last: DL from MNMost Meritorious Player: 1980 Discussion (45 - 1:04am, Apr 09)Last: lieiamMost Meritorious Player: 1979 Results (12 - 4:30pm, Mar 14)Last: TomHMost Meritorious Player: 1979 Ballot (35 - 4:06pm, Mar 12)Last: TomHNew Eligibles Year by Year (956 - 3:11pm, Mar 12)Last: Chris FluitMike Mussina (46 - 8:36am, Mar 12)Last: Rants Mulliniks (formerly Cold Prosimian)
|
|
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
That sounds about right to me.
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.
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.
:-)
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.
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?) ;>)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
Travis Jackson
Ross Youngs
I'd also like to see Miller Huggins if possible.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 . . .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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 . . .
--Joe
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 . . .
PennAdd WSaR WS WARP3
.641 177 253 67.5
Wally Berger (LF) .634 177 253 67.4
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.
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 :-)
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
Keep it coming guys. ETA middle next week . . .
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
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main