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 Pitchers (updated for the 1949 Ballot)

Here is the thread for the pitchers. I’ve set this up to divide them by era, but if you think I made a bad judgement call, or having a better idea for arranging them, please let me know.

Pitchers (pre-1880)    PenAdd WSaR   WS  WARP3    RSI    RSI Fib.
Al Spalding                               27.9  210-108    241
John Ward (total)       1.772  425  672   79.2
 John Ward (1878-83)    1.256  276  423         152-114    125
Bobby Mathews                             18.6  302-243    226
Tommy Bond                                31.0  229-168    193

Pitchers (1880-1892)   PenAdd WSaR   WS  WARP3    RSI    RSI Fib.
Charles Radbourn        1.898  406  594   69.3  292-212    249
Tim Keefe               1.789  415  609   65.8  329-228    295
Pud Galvin              1.733  387  635   60.3  359-315    235
Jim McCormick           1.682  378  577   58.6  268-211    207
Tony Mullane            1.615  376  553   42.1  287-214    237
John Clarkson           1.527  355  506   76.9  299-207    269
Mickey Welch            1.434  341  536   37.2  302-215    263
Bob Caruthers           1.281  300  414   60.0  199-118    206
Jim Whitney             1.262  285  440   52.4  200-195    106
Charlie Buffinton       1.034  249  385   52.2  224-161    193
Dave Foutz               .953  239  363   32.9    n/a      n/a
Silver King              .909  214  314   45.7  205-152    171
Kid Gleason (1888-94)    .428  116  192   29.8
Elmer Smith (1886-89)    .353   84  118    8.6

(sig. value pre/post 1893) PA WSaR   WS  WARP3    RSI    RSI Fib.
Amos Rusie               .943  235  353   79.1  245-174    214
Jack Stivetts            .926  237  339   44.3  191-144    156
Bill Hutchison           .667  167  264   40.5  191-155    141
Gus Weyhing              .627  171  304   24.3  255-241    145
Frank Killen             .520  141  219   41.8    n/a      n/a
Bert Cunningham          .260   77  159   15.7    n/a      n/a

Pitchers (1890s-1900s) PenAdd WSaR   WS  WARP3    RSI    RSI Fib.
Cy Young                1.977  510  731  176.7  509-318    504
Kid Nichols             1.615  405  560  106.4  363-206    389
Christy Mathewson       1.215  324  460  124.9  360-201    390
Eddie Plank              .936  266  395   94.0  306-214    272
Mordecai Brown           .821  227  315   65.6  219-150    199
Clark Griffith           .774  216  320   72.1  231-152    218
Joe McGinnity            .753  202  302   58.5  234-154    221
Ed Walsh                 .752  200  282   79.3  193-128    181
Vic Willis               .743  207  322   62.7  251-203    187
Jack Powell              .664  192  319   58.1  252-247    132
Rube Waddell             .655  182  269   63.1  198-138    177
Jesse Tannehill          .625  176  261   57.5  180-134    149
Nig Cuppy                .597  161  232   39.7    n/a      n/a
Al Orth                  .594  172  276   59.8  196-197     97
George Mullin            .587  171  277   49.6  223-201    139
Ted Breitenstein         .585  160  253   57.4  176-154    116
Jack Chesbro             .561  150  235   44.8  188-142    153
Chief Bender             .557  165  252   51.4  193-146    157
Pink Hawley              .546  149  242   44.2  185-161    123
Deacon Phillippe         .540  155  231   37.4  180-118    171
Sam Leever               .534  157  233   42.0  174-119    158
Addie Joss               .498  141  209   50.9  163-94     172
Noodles Hahn             .426  120  180   45.8    n/a      n/a

Pitchers (1910s-1920s) PenAdd WSaR   WS  WARP3    RSI    RSI Fib.
Walter Johnson          1.678  436  604  188.9  433-263    439
Pete Alexander          1.342  363  507  145.1  369-212    391
Eppa Rixey               .694  206  331   80.2  280-237    195
Carl Mays                .681  193  279   71.5  188-146    148
Red Faber                .674  198  312   83.7  256-213    183
Burleigh Grimes          .672  191  309   73.2  255-227    163
Wilbur Cooper            .671  191  290   61.4  217-177    160
Jack Quinn               .661  198  308   79.6  256-209    188
Stan Coveleski           .649  182  270   78.8  212-145    193
Ed Cicotte               .619  177  268   67.0  200-157    155
Babe Adams               .607  176  260   58.6  189-145    151
Urban Shocker            .578  168  243   72.7  186-118    182
Dolph Luque              .572  167  256   65.9  207-166    156
Bob Shawkey              .529  155  237   60.8  185-161    123
George Uhle              .528  155  245   69.6  193-173    122
Herb Pennock             .524  156  255   61.8  230-173    188
Hippo Vaughn             .520  148  225   53.5  178-137    142
Eddie Rommel             .506  150  221   68.2  178-112    175
Rube Marquard            .443  131  224   39.5  208-170    152
Babe Ruth ('14-17+P18/19).345   93  140           n/a      n/a

Pitchers (1920s-1930s) PenAdd WSaR   WS  WARP3    RSI    RSI Fib.
Lefty Grove             1.135  307  417  127.0  296-145    350
Ted Lyons                .728  215  330  105.4  269-221    196
Dazzy Vance              .610  174  256   79.4  209-128    211
Waite Hoyt               .585  176  280   73.2  236-183    186
Sam Jones                .507  153  262   62.6  228-218    127
Red Lucas                .432  130  207   67.3    n/a      n/a
Jesse Haines             .427  131  219   49.2  203-165    150
Rube Walberg             .366  111  185   43.9    n/a      n/a

Pitchers (1930s)       PenAdd WSaR   WS  WARP3    RSI    RSI Fib.
Carl Hubbell             .790  223  323  101.9  252-155    253
Wes Ferrell              .620  173  248   81.2  188-133    165
Lon Warneke              .539  156  233   72.8  178-135    144
Tommy Bridges            .536  160  237   75.8  191-141    160
Dizzy Dean               .500  138  193   62.0   142-91    138
Lefty Gomez              .438  127  197   57.0  175-116    164
Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 25, 2004 at 11:49 AM | 49 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.

   1. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 25, 2004 at 12:35 PM (#982235)
Moving this to the hot topics . . .
   2. karlmagnus Posted: November 25, 2004 at 03:54 PM (#982297)
A splendid list, that will help greatly, particularly in sorting out the 1920s. One you left out from the 1890s-1900s though, was Leever, who looks to me of very high quality and was a top pitcher on a multiple pennant winner. Would it be possible to add him?
   3. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: November 25, 2004 at 06:53 PM (#982373)
Note: the RSI & RSI Fib. info includes the defensive adjustment. The "official" adjustment on my site doesn't include the Def Adj becasue I'm not sure quite what to make of it (though I do list W/L adjusted for RSI & DA on the DA results thread).
   4. OCF Posted: November 25, 2004 at 07:18 PM (#982389)
How does the RSI record compare to the RA+-Pythaganport records I’ve been building? The following tables chart the difference. I’ve added a few names. I’m sure Chris has them done as well, but I didn’t check his site.

My “RA+ Fib.” numbers are based on the equivalent record before roundoff, and thus aren’t exactly what you’d get from the record in whole numbers.

* An adjustment for defensive support has been done on this pitcher. In each cases, he would rank higher without this adjustment.
# An adjustment for defensive support has NOT been done, but probably should be. I suspect the RA+ record overrates him for that reason.

Pitchers (1890s-1900s)    RSI    RSI Fib.  RA+   RA+ Fib.  Diff.  
Cy Young                 509-318    504   519-298   551      +47
Kid Nichols*             363-206    389   352-210   363      -26
Christy Mathewson        360-201    390   332-199   340      -50
Amos Rusie               245-174    214   248-171   222      + 8
Eddie Plank              306-214    272   224-197   289      +17
Mordecai Brown*          219-150    199   211-143   193      - 6
Clark Griffith           231-152    218   203-146   175      -43
Ed Walsh                 193-128    181   210-119   225      +44
Joe McGinnity            234-154    221   227-155   206      -15
Vic Willis*              251-203    187   248-196   192      + 5   
Rube Waddell             198-138    177   200-129   191      +14
Addie Joss               163- 94    172   161- 98   164      - 8
Jack Stivetts            191-144    156   (not done)
Jesse Tannehill#         180-134    149   174-132   141      - 8
Gus Weyhing              255-241    145   (not done)
Bill Hutchison           191-155    141   (not done)
Pink Hawley              185-161    123   (not done)
Ted Breitenstein         176-154    116   (not done)
Al Orth                  196-197     97   195-177   121      +24
Jack Powell              ---              263-225   179
Ed Reulbach#             ---              178-115   172
Sam Leever#              ---              179-117   169
Chief Bender             ---              192-143   160
Deacon Phillippe#        ---              171-118   155
Doc White                ---              191-147   152
Jack Chesbro             ---              182-140   144

Pitchers (1910s-1920s)    RSI    RSI Fib.  RA+   RA+ Fib.  Diff.
Walter Johnson           433-263    439   427-230   473      +34
Pete Alexander           369-212    391   369-208   397      + 6
Carl Mays                188-146    148   189-146   150      + 2
Eppa Rixey               280-237    195   275-224   202      + 7
Wilbur Cooper            217-177    160   220-166   180      +20
Red Faber                256-213    183   255-199   200      +17
Burleigh Grimes          255-227    163   242-222   147      -16
Jack Quinn               256-209    188   237-199   167      -21
Stan Coveleski           212-145    193   209-134   203      +10
Ed Cicotte               200-157    155   209-149   181      +26
Urban Shocker            186-118    182   181-117   173      - 9
Dolph Luque              207-166    156   203-154   164      + 8
George Uhle              193-173    122   186-160   126      + 4
Herb Pennock             230-173    188   216-181   152      -36
Eddie Rommel             178-112    175   167-117   147      -28
Babe Adams#              ---              201-132   189
Bob Shawkey              ---              189-137   163
Hippo Vaughn             ---              174-129   144

Chris and I are not getting the same number of decisions because he’s working from actual decisions and I’m working from IP. This is probably most significant for Griffith, who has the lowest number of IP per decision of any of these pitchers, by a considerable margin.

There are plenty of convincing reasons for not voting for Waddell. However, it is popular to cite his unearned runs as one reason. Note that the table above is RA, not ERA – I am already counting his unearned runs against him.

If I were to ask for one pitcher to be added to the table at the top of the page, it would be Babe Adams.

I also have data for Vance, Ruffing, Hoyt, Haines, and a few others, and could add that when appropriate.
   5. PhillyBooster Posted: November 29, 2004 at 05:10 AM (#985673)
Noticing Carl Mays as the #3 pitcher on the bottom chart . . .

Does anyone care to argue against the proposition that it is a horrible error for me to continue to exclude Carl Mays from my ballot?

Specifically, why isn't Mays overall superior to Coveleski? They have nearly the exact career stats. Almost identical league and era. Same number of innings. Coveleski had a few more Ks, but also a few more BBs. Similar win totals. Mays had a better Win%, but maybe for better teams. They even have nearly identical ERAs, but Coveleski gets park-factored into an extra 8 points of ERA+. So, give a marginal pitching edge to Coveleski.

Then, look at their hitting. In nearly identical PA, Mays has an OPS of .663, for an OPS+ of 82. Coveleski has an OPS of .407, for an OPS+ of 9(!).

Doesn't that more than obliterate any pitching advantage by Coveleski?

Look at it this way: 176 extra TB+BB for Mays. Assume that instead of Mays getting those extra hits, they were extra hits and walks given up by Coveleski. Assign of linear weight of, conservatively, 0.4 runs per TB+BB, and you get an extra 70 runs given up by Stan. Seventy extra runs lifts Coveleski's ERA to 3.10 and his ERA+ to . . . 118. One lower than Mays's 119.
   6. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 29, 2004 at 09:32 AM (#986035)
Pitchers above electees that aren't in, by era:

Pre-1880 pitchers - none.

1880-1892 pitchers - Jim McCormick 1.532, Mickey Welch 1.308 (Bob Caruthers 1.308; John Clarkson 1.405 only pitching).

1893-1910 pitchers - Clark Griffith .713 (Joe McGinnity .689) Vic Willis .679

1910-1929 pitchers - Carl Mays .631, Eppa Rixey .630, Wilbur Cooper .615, Burleigh Grimes .609, Jack Quinn .605 (Stan Coveleski .598).

Pitchers, using Fibonacci-RSI

pre-1880 - none.

1880-1892 - Mickey Welch 302-215 (263), Tony Mullane 287-214 (237) (Pud Galvin 359-315, 235).

1893-1910 - Clark Griffith 231-152 (218), Vic Willis 251-203 (187) (Ed Walsh 193-128, 181)

1911-1929 - Eppa Rixey 280-237 (195), Herb Pennock 230-173 (188), Jack Quinn 256-209 (188), (Red Faber 256-213, 183) Urban Shocker 186-118 (182)
   7. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 02, 2004 at 10:34 AM (#991199)
Updated pitchers for new replacement level. See the position player thread for details.

Eppa Rixey moved ahead of Carl Mays, but that was the only difference.

Pitchers moved up a bit, batters moved down. I had the replacement level off a bit. I had it too low for hitters and too high for pitchers.

As for pitcher batting - I set the replacement level at 0 WS. Pitchers get full credit for all of their hitting, as opposed to batters. For guys like Caruthers and Ward and I prorate their pitching/batting games out so their batting replacement is zero when pitching and regular when playing the field.
   8. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 09, 2004 at 10:41 AM (#1008232)
Updated for 1941. I've created a new class for pitchers who have the great majority of their value after the deadball era ended.
   9. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 09, 2004 at 10:42 AM (#1008234)
Don't take that list as an endorsement from me on Grimes over Vance. Win Shares is only one thing to consider . . .
   10. ronw Posted: January 08, 2005 at 10:28 PM (#1065916)
Could you complete the 19th century, early 20th century pitchers above? It might help (or hurt) the Griffith argument. Also if all HOFers could be added, Hall of Famers Happy Jack Chesbro and Rube Marquard would be grateful.

Also, I'd like to see Charlie Buffinton added to the 1880s, George Mullin, Jack Powell, Sam Leever, and Deacon Phillippe added to the 90s-00s, and Bob Shawkey and Hippo Vaughn added to the 10s-20s list. None are HOMers, but its helpful to see a gap between the HOMers and the good but not greats.
   11. OCF Posted: January 09, 2005 at 02:22 AM (#1066211)
...and Bob Shawkey and Hippo Vaughn added to the 10s-20s list. None are HOMers, but its helpful to see a gap between the HOMers and the good but not greats.

And Babe Adams.
   12. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 10, 2005 at 05:32 AM (#1068961)
Ron/OCF - I'll do it, but don't think I can get to it tonight . . . so is this a complete list:

Sam Leever
Babe Adams
Jack Chesbro
Rube Marquard
Charlie Buffinton
George Mullin
Jack Powell
Deacon Phillippe
Bob Shawkey
Hippo Vaughn

I should be able to get them up there by Tuesday morning.
   13. ronw Posted: January 12, 2005 at 08:16 PM (#1075223)
Joe (#12) that's complete for additions, but it would also be helpful if you could finish:

Bobby Mathews
Tommy Bond
Tony Mullane
Silver King
Jim Whitney
Jack Stivetts
Jesse Tannehill
Gus Weyhing
Bill Hutchison
Pink Hawley
Ted Breitenstein
Al Orth

You have some data for that last list above, but not PA or WS data.
   14. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 13, 2005 at 06:14 AM (#1076374)
Ron, thanks! I will do them all, but things have been busier than expected this week. Hopefully I can get them up by Tuesday PM/Wednesday AM next week - if it will impact your ballot, please hold off until then . . .
   15. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 19, 2005 at 05:26 AM (#1087984)
Plan to do this tonight Ron - not sure how far I'll get, hopefully I can get them all . . .
   16. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 19, 2005 at 06:08 AM (#1088019)
One thing that would help would be WARP to WS conversions for NA pitchers. This would help for Mathews, Bond and Spalding. Anyone have any ideas?
   17. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 23, 2005 at 12:19 PM (#1096295)
Major Update!

I updated for the new WARP3 numbers (which intuitively make a lot more sense.

I added all pitchers, and the 'pennant' calc is updated through 1943 (the part that figures out the pennant impact of a season, based on all seasons through the election).

Also, I made a major tweak in accounting for replacement level for pitchers that also played the field.

I'm hoping to get the hitters done tomorrow, but it might not be until later in the week.
   18. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 23, 2005 at 12:38 PM (#1096297)
Players who we appear to have missed - meaning everyone else similar in their grouping (in both WARP3 and Win Shares Pennants Added) is in:

1880-92: Jim McCormick

Mullane played in weak leagues (evidenced by bad WARP3); Welch (not sure why his WARP3 is so bad); Whitney was nearly as good as Caruthers, but I think the line was drawn too low with Bob.

1890s-1900s: Clark Griffith and Vic Willis

1910s-1920s: Eppa Rixey and Jack Quinn

Both have higher WARP3 and PA than Coveleski - not sure if that means the line is too low at Stan or not. Could also include Mays and Grimes but both have significantly lower WARP3 than Coveleski. Cooper is way behind Coveleski in WARP3, suggesting weak league. I'd probably drop Quinn as his PA is boosted by the Federal League.

When you give Rixey credit for missing a season and a half for the war, he's a no-brainer and clearly the best pitcher of the era, after Johnson and Alexander.

I'm torn on McCormick, but I think I'm pushing him past Welch unless someone can give me a good reason why. I'm back on big Jim's bandwagon. Right now I rank them 1. Rixey; 2. Griffith; 3. Willis; 4. McCormick.
   19. PhillyBooster Posted: January 24, 2005 at 04:07 PM (#1098875)
1910s-1920s: Eppa Rixey and Jack Quinn

Both have higher WARP3 and PA than Coveleski


Not to restate the results you posted above (which are, as always, very helpful), but the top two pitching candidates from this era are really Rixey and Carl Mays (as your results indicate).

Quinn's advantage is in career length, but Mays was a better pitcher in his 3000 innings, and had more value as a hitter in 3000 innings than Quinn had in 4000.

Rixey is at the top of my ballot, but if you're looking for another pitcher from that era, "peak" points toward Mays, not Quinn.
   20. karlmagnus Posted: January 24, 2005 at 04:37 PM (#1098918)
From this list, Vance looks like a mistake. I've boosted Rixey (and, alas, downgraded Leever) in my preliminary '44.
   21. OCF Posted: January 24, 2005 at 04:55 PM (#1098954)
Amendment to post #4:

Pitchers (1890s-1900s)    RSI    RSI Fib.  RA+   RA+ Fib.  Diff.  
Clark Griffith          231-152    218   216-160   181      -37
   22. ronw Posted: January 24, 2005 at 06:17 PM (#1099138)
For comparison's sake, the only other name I would want to see here (through 1943) is that of Chief Bender.

Also, I can't help you on Tommy Bond or Bobby Mathews, but their complete numbers would be nice eventually.
   23. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 28, 2005 at 09:16 AM (#1107846)
Updated for 1944. Basically hoping to have all pitchers over 150 wins up there. Please let me know who I may be missing . . . thanks!
   24. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 28, 2005 at 11:24 AM (#1108026)
Ferrell came out surprisingly well in Pennants Added and WARP3, both of which account for his hitting. According to RSI, Vance won 21 more while losing 5 fewer games, which is a huge edge. Is that offset by Ferrell creating 144 more runs while using 3 more outs with the bat. It's pretty close I'd say.

I can't see how anyone could support Vance and not Ferrell - they are extremely close.

Hoyt is an interesting case. Clearly doesn't have the peak of the other two, but he's much closer than I thought he'd be.
   25. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 28, 2005 at 12:38 PM (#1108040)
                          PA  WSaR   WS   WARP3
Wes Ferrell              .611  173  248   81.2  188-133    165
Dazzy Vance              .601  174  256   79.5  209-128    211


What this shows is that Ferrell actually had the higher peak, according to Win Shares. They have essentially equal WS above replacement, Vance leads 174-173. But Ferrell gets the edge on PA, .611 to .601, which means Ferrell had a higher peak.

On WARP3, Ferrell has a slight edge too.

So, did we overrate Dazzy because of his strikeouts? If we don't rank Ferrell highly, I think it's a major sign that Dazzy was overrated - or Wes' hitting is underrated.
   26. DanG Posted: January 28, 2005 at 04:06 PM (#1108206)
Joe:
A few other recent pitchers you might add are Tom Zachary, Firpo Marberry, Joe Bush, Hooks Dauss and Joe Wood.
   27. karlmagnus Posted: January 28, 2005 at 04:27 PM (#1108249)
As a point of purely pedagogical interest, is the Caruthers figure total, or as pitcher only? Would be interesting to see his breakdown between pitching and hitting.
   28. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 28, 2005 at 08:59 PM (#1108880)
Karl - Caruthers is total - duh, with all of the other breakdowns, of course I should have split him out too - just never crossed my mind. Will do, probably can't get to it until tomorrow night.

Thanks Dan, will do on those guys too.
   29. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 28, 2005 at 09:02 PM (#1108889)
The more I look at it, Stivetts belongs in the 1880-92 group. He's obviously not comparable to Rusie, and his PA/WARP3 ratio obviously fits right in on the 1880-92 list, as opposed to the 'swing era' list. I'll fix that when I get a chance too.
   30. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: February 02, 2005 at 10:20 AM (#1119800)
Just noticed a mistake on Rube Waddell's tally. I had 1900 zero'd out for him for some reason. He gained .042 PA, 13 WSaR and 19 WS. Sorry about that. The numbers are now correct.
   31. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 12, 2005 at 07:01 AM (#1250110)
Updated through the 1949 ballot . . . thanks KJOK!
   32. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 13, 2005 at 08:03 AM (#1252453)
Also just added Lefty Gomez.
   33. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 13, 2005 at 08:07 AM (#1252454)
Man the uber-stats hate Gomez. Compare him to Warneke. Warneke's extra 3-19 'season', according to RSI, netted him 23% more PA, 29 more WSaR, 36 more WS, and 15.8 more WARP3. That is wild.
   34. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: March 01, 2006 at 06:12 AM (#1879179)
Same post as on the other Pennants added thread . . . except that for pitchers I'm seriously going to consider using WARP1 as the main number instead of WS. I'm really not a fan of WS for pitchers, though WS above replacement (WSaR) is much better than plain WS. It's too time-consuming to do both, so I'm going to have to make a call one-way or the other. I would be open to somehow incorporating translated IP into the mix to get these guys on the same playing field, if someone sees a way to do that. Maybe DERA and translated IP somehow? Any ideas?

Here's the repeat . . .

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 :-)
   35. Brent Posted: March 03, 2006 at 04:55 AM (#1881875)
Same post as on the other Pennants added thread . . . except that for pitchers I'm seriously going to consider using WARP1 as the main number instead of WS. I'm really not a fan of WS for pitchers, though WS above replacement (WSaR) is much better than plain WS.

I'm very skeptical about WARP1 because of the extensive timelining that is built into its replacement levels. I've run some rough estimates of the PRAR (pitching runs above replacement) for an average pitcher pitching 240 innings:

PRAR, average pitcher, 240 innings
Year NL AL
1885 20 --
1895 34 --
1905 35 34
1915 40 42
1925 45 49
1935 45 53
1945 51 51
1955 61 62
1965 56 60

As you can see, an average pitcher is considered to be worth about 50 percent more per inning (or about 2 wins per 240 innings) in 1955 than in 1915. The pre-1920 increases tend to offset the declining workload of the average pitcher, but the increases since 1920 are much larger than any changes in average innings pitched.

Also, note the large differential that develops between the two leagues during the 1920s and 30s. I wonder how much of the lack of support for NL pitchers from that period, and the recent enthusiasm for 1950s-era pitchers, is due to these shifts in WARP1 replacement levels? As I've argued before, WARP1's shifts in replacement level seem too large to justify based on changes in workload or importance of pitching. If you want to use WARP1, please make sure you understand and agree with its large timelining of replacement levels.
   36. jimd Posted: March 03, 2006 at 07:49 PM (#1882642)
WARP1 replacement levels

As far as I can determine, there is NO significant change in the WARP1 defensive replacement levels post 1900. The percentage of value that goes to offense remains approximately "constant", that is, it varies a little bit, but not by a lot. In the 19th century, the percentage of value that goes to offense varies a lot (relatively) and is usually higher than the 20th century percentage. To me, all of this indicates that WARP1's replacement level for defense (pitching/fielding combined) is higher in the 19th century, but has not changed significantly post 1900. As described in one of the glossaries at BP, the defensive replacement level is placed at the pythagorean inverse of the offensive replacement level.

What changes during the 20th century is the balance between fielding and pitching. Errors decline significantly, reducing the frequency of the only events that are primarily fielding. Home runs and strikeouts both rise significantly, increasing the frequency of events that are primarily pitching. Each of those three changes shifts defensive responsibility away from the fielders and onto the pitchers.
   37. jimd Posted: March 03, 2006 at 08:09 PM (#1882684)
extensive timelining

BTW Brent, I believe that you are misusing the word "timelining" when referring to this change in the fielding/pitching split in WARP. If we could change the rules to bring back deadball baseball to modern MLB (soft mushy baseballs, ban gloves with pockets to force fielders to catch with their hands, maybe limit pitching substitutions), then WARP's fielding/pitching split would revert back to that of the deadball era. OTOH, James' timeline would still be operative after that change, still asserting that modern athletes were superior.

A timeline is a function of time, WARP's fielding/pitching split is a function of the game's statistics. Those are not the same thing.
   38. KJOK Posted: March 04, 2006 at 04:44 AM (#1883217)
I'm very skeptical about WARP1 because of the extensive timelining that is built into its replacement levels

As jimd alluded to, I would say that WARP1 has no "timeline" and it's WARP3 that is "timelined", resulting in smaller WARP3's for older players than for more recent ones.

Plus, it's being used to calculate PENNANTS ADDED, which is a season by season measure, so it probably makes sense to use a basis that looks only at that season's statistics instead of one, like WARP3, that is calibrated to the history of baseball (in other words, for PENNANTS ADDED calculation for 1885, Monte Ward's defense IS more valuable than it would have been in 1985, so WARP1 is more "accurate")
   39. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: March 04, 2006 at 05:40 AM (#1883250)
While Brent might misuse the term 'timelining' compared to how we normally use it (giving a bonus for a particular era, usually a more modern one), the essential effect of what he shows is the same as timelining.

Still not sure what to do. If you guys have anything else to add, I'm all ears.
   40. KJOK Posted: March 04, 2006 at 06:46 AM (#1883290)
While Brent might misuse the term 'timelining' compared to how we normally use it (giving a bonus for a particular era, usually a more modern one), the essential effect of what he shows is the same as timelining.

Still not sure what to do. If you guys have anything else to add, I'm all ears.


I'll just re-iterate that whatever WARP1 does, it is NOT timelining, not even in "essential effect".

If defense was 90% of "winning" in 1875, then WARP1 would reflect that, defensive players would have been the most valuable players, and would have contributed to the most pennants, and should therefore get the most PENNANTS ADDED.

Timelining would be just the opposite, "adjusting out" the unique league/year balance to a more generic "all eras" measurement, which in my opinion would be 100% wrong for measuring "pennants added".
   41. Brent Posted: March 04, 2006 at 07:34 PM (#1883565)
Jimd and KJOK are right that BP apparently bases its adjustments to fielding and pitching replacement levels on the frequency of events that are related to their relative importance, such as errors, strikeouts, walks, and home runs. It is not a simple function of time.

A few things, however, to keep in mind:
a) The magnitude of these adjustments is huge. For example, BP’s WARP1 split of defensive responsibility is 78 percent fielding, 22 percent pitching for the 1885 NL; 50 percent each for the 1925 NL; and 70 percent pitching, 30 percent fielding for the 1949 AL.
b) As far as I am aware, BP hasn’t published the formulas that they use for these adjustments or provided an explanation or rationale for how they were derived.
c) I worked out at an example comparing the 1925 NL with the 1949 AL, looking at the changes in frequency of the fielding-independent components and weighting them by their run values (see 1967 Ballot Discussion). My results suggested the effects on the fielding-pitching split should have been closer to 5 percentage points rather than the 20 percentage point difference apparent in the BP statistics.

If the adjustments that BP makes to WARP1 pitcher replacement values overstate the actual changes in the defensive environment, then I think it is fair to call the remaining effect a “timeline”--it devalues pitchers from earlier eras relative to pitchers from more recent times.

By the way, while we’re correcting the use of language, how about BP’s use of the term “replacement” for fielding and pitching, where it is clear that the changes in their replacement values over time have nothing to do with availability of “replacement-level” players?
   42. jimd Posted: March 06, 2006 at 08:21 PM (#1885830)
c) I worked out at an example comparing the 1925 NL with the 1949 AL, looking at the changes in frequency of the fielding-independent components and weighting them by their run values (see 1967 Ballot Discussion). My results suggested the effects on the fielding-pitching split should have been closer to 5 percentage points rather than the 20 percentage point difference apparent in the BP statistics.

I'm not at all sure how you derived your numbers. I looked at the stats for 1925 NL and 1949 AL and using the linear weights you provided came up with a shift of about 16-17% (back of the envelope estimate) from fielding to pitching. Majority of it was due to the pheomenal increase in BB's; HR's and K's were secondary components; errors were not that big a deal (I assumed an error had the same value as a single).

By the way, while we’re correcting the use of language, how about BP’s use of the term “replacement” for fielding and pitching, where it is clear that the changes in their replacement values over time have nothing to do with availability of “replacement-level” players?

They use a "theoretical" replacement level, both for offense and defense. IIRC, the offensive one has been researched and found to be fairly constant throughout the 20th century. The defensive replacement level is the pythagorean inverse of the offensive one (or so says one of their glossaries).

I've complained before about BP's use of the term "replacement" level for a portion of the fielding value which is really closely related to WS's "intrinsic weights". It has nothing to do with the availablity of replacement SS's and everything to do with why a team with 8 Barry Bonds'es would most likely trade 4 or 5 of them. There is an intrinsic value to playing "glove" positions which is represented by the amount of offense that managers are willing to sacrifice to get a capable fielder out there. Incorporating this value into "replacement level" is misleading, at least to me.
   43. jimd Posted: March 06, 2006 at 11:32 PM (#1886059)
the essential effect of what he shows is the same as timelining.

Is it timelining for an offensive measure to allow a greater percentage of offensive value to be concentrated in HR's over the years?

Then why is it timelining for a defensive measure to allow a greater percentage of defensive value to be concentrated in HR prevention over the years?

Because that's the driving force here, IMO. I did the 1955 NL in addition to the 1949 AL, and got a shift of about 24% from fielders to pitchers. They walked a lot less batters (walks were a secondary factor), and got more K's and gave up a lot more HR's (the dominant factor in the NL analysis). Apparently they were challenging the HR hitters, instead of working around them (the AL strategy), but in either case, considerably more run value was concentrated in HR, K, and BB than in 1925.
   44. jimd Posted: March 06, 2006 at 11:39 PM (#1886072)
They walked a lot less batters

when comparing the 1955 NL to the 1949 AL (not the 1925 NL).

Sorry for any confusion. Someday I'll write more clearly.
   45. Brent Posted: March 07, 2006 at 05:21 AM (#1886491)
I'm not at all sure how you derived your numbers. I looked at the stats for 1925 NL and 1949 AL and using the linear weights you provided came up with a shift of about 16-17% (back of the envelope estimate) from fielding to pitching. Majority of it was due to the pheomenal increase in BB's; HR's and K's were secondary components; errors were not that big a deal (I assumed an error had the same value as a single).

Looking at the problem again, I’m not sure I really know what I should be doing. Because the linear weights formula uses _marginal_ run contributions, it doesn’t add up to total runs. Also, some components have a positive effect on runs, while others have a negative effect.

But at any rate here is how I did my calculations. First, here are the basic data I used:

Year Lg ___AB ____H __2B _3B _HR __BB _SO
1925 NL 42859 12495 2120 614 636 3460 3373
1949 AL 41669 10961 1737 391 769 5627 4369

Let’s split the calculation into two parts: the components with a positive effect on runs (singles, doubles, triples, home runs, and walks) and those with a negative effect (strikeouts and other outs, approximated as AB-SO-H).

I’ll start by using DIPS-type assumptions—looking just at the shares of the defense-independent components. For the components with positive contributions, that’s:

(1.40 HR + .33 BB) / (.47 1B + .78 2B + 1.09 3B + 1.40 HR + .33 BB)

= 23.5 percent for 1925 NL
= 34.5 percent for 1949 AL.

For the components with negative contributions (outs), the formula is simply:

SO / (AB – H)

= 11.1 percent for 1925 NL
= 14.2 percent for 1949 AL.

So it seems the combined effect should be somewhere between 11 percentage points (the effect on the positive components) and 3 percentage points (the effect on the negative components). To combine the two, I decided to just take the absolute value of the effect of outs:

(1.40 HR + .33 BB + .25 SO) /
(.47 1B + .78 2B + 1.09 3B + 1.40 HR + .33 BB + .25 (AB – H))

= 17.7 percent for 1925 NL
= 24.9 percent for 1949 AL.

This calculation suggests a shift of about 7 percentage points in defensive responsibility.

However, it is clear that BP does not use a pure DIPS-type model. So I ran the same calculations, except giving pitchers 50 percent of the responsibility for, and credit for, balls in play (1B, 2B, 3B, and AB – SO - H). In this second version, the share of responsibility for pitchers increased from 58.9 percent in the 1925 NL to 62.4 percent in the 1949 AL, or only about 3 1/2 percentage points.

As I said earlier, I’m not at all sure that this is the right way to do the calculations. But I don’t see a way of doing the calculations that would give a 16-17 percent shift (or the 20 percent shift that BP reports).
   46. KJOK Posted: March 07, 2006 at 07:55 PM (#1887119)
I would suggest we need Pennants Added for Koufax ASAP as most of the argument for inducting him in the HOM involves a high pennant impact.
   47. DavidFoss Posted: July 08, 2006 at 02:44 AM (#2091774)
bump!

Hey Joe, since you are on a PA kick, any chance your results could be posted here?

Thanks.
   48. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 08, 2006 at 11:19 AM (#2091957)
Yeah David - I should repost them here . . . good idea. Can't do it now, probably not before Monday . . .

Also, the new 'kick' I'm on is a complete, wholesale revision, the methodology above is basically obsolete.

Well, not the PA methodology, but I'm not using WARP or WS any more, I'm coming up with my own numbers. They resemble WARP, but I'm doing all of the calcs myself, using different exponents, different replacement levels, Runs Created Above Position for pitcher hitting, etc..

Actually thanks for bringing this up, there are a bunch of pitchers up there that I haven't calced yet, I can add them to the list - hopefully have it done within a week or so.
   49. DavidFoss Posted: July 08, 2006 at 09:22 PM (#2092262)
Well, not the PA methodology, but I'm not using WARP or WS any more, I'm coming up with my own numbers. They resemble WARP, but I'm doing all of the calcs myself, using different exponents, different replacement levels, Runs Created Above Position for pitcher hitting, etc..

Well, I suppoes in some ways that's good because you like the numbers better, but in some ways I'm a bit worried that the numbers are too personalized to your taste and the calculations are a bit more obfuscated too to the fact that the algorithm is not published. I know it might be a bit much to ask, but could you report both the old PA as well as your new PA_JoeD? Where they differ might also be instructive.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Rough Carrigan
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.7866 seconds
49 querie(s) executed