Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Primate Studies > Discussion
Primate Studies
— Where BTF's Members Investigate the Grand Old Game

Friday, January 05, 2007

Gross Wins Above Average, 2006 Update

Well, it’s January once more. The time of year when, as the weather grows colder, the thoughts of even the most hard-hearted among us turn to one thing: mostly pointless, vaguely self-indulgent baseball stats calculated out to several decimal places in order to give an illusory impression of precision. Naturally, I’m being facetious: every time of the year is a time when people’s thoughts turn to mostly pointless, vaguely self-indulgent baseball stats calculated out to several decimal places in order to give an illusory impression of precision.

But winter is also the time when these stats get applied to Hall of Fame debates. As such, I thought it was time to bring out an update to the Gross Wins Above Average (GWAA) stat I introduced in this article in April. Though the full methodology and reasoning behind the stat can be found in the link, basically GWAA (nee NWAA) involves calculating the RCAP (Runs Created Above Position) for hitters and RSAA (Runs Saved Above Average) for pitchers for each season in a player’s career, converting this to wins above and below average, and then only counting the above-average seasons. I think this gives a better picture of a player’s total value, peak and career, than average- or replacement-level based stats. There are a few problems with the stats used, most notably that, while they adjust for position, they don’t include defense, as I have little faith in defensive stats from before the last few years, but I still think the results are worth taking a look at.

For my last article, I only had the stats available to calculate RCAP back to 1972. Fortunately, thanks to Baseball Prospectus and Retrosheet, I now have the data going back to 1957. There are thirty-eight Hall of Famers who either debuted in 1957 or later, or had no more than 130 AB or 50 IP prior to 1957. Here are the GWAA scores for each:


name         gwaa
Joe Morgan     70.17
Mike Schmidt     54.08
George Brett     53.89
Tom Seaver     52.71
Rod Carew       50.29
Reggie Jackson   49.68
Bob Gibson     48.68
Wade Boggs     47.59
Willie McCovey   47.16
Robin Yount     43.62
Steve Carlton   42.88
Paul Molitor     41.97
Willie Stargell   41.63
Jim Palmer     40.27
Gaylord Perry   40.18
Carl Yastrzemski 38.44
Phil Niekro     38.14
Eddie Murray     36.79
Johnny Bench     36.44
Carlton Fisk     35.66
Dave Winfield   35.39
Juan Marichal   33.42
Fergie Jenkins   31.78
Ryne Sandberg   30.69
Orlando Cepeda   30.29
Nolan Ryan     29.31
Kirby Puckett   28.45
Gary Carter     26.71
Billy Williams   26.40
Dennis Eckersley 26.13
Don Sutton     25.05
Tony Perez     23.83
Brooks Robinson   21.38
Catfish Hunter   18.50
Ozzie Smith     17.35
Rollie Fingers   15.91
Bruce Sutter     14.13
Lou Brock       10.69

Joe Morgan really should never have invented this stat.

Now, let’s compare the thirty-eight Hall-eligible players in the post-1957 group with the highest GWAA scores, to see who might have been the most qualified candidates to fill those slots while keeping the overall size of the Hall the same. Non-Hall of Famers are in italics:


Joe Morgan     70.17
Mike Schmidt     54.08
George Brett     53.89
Tom Seaver     52.71
Rod Carew       50.29
Reggie Jackson   49.68
Bob Gibson     48.68
Dick Allen     48.12
Wade Boggs     47.59
Willie McCovey   47.16
Robin Yount     43.62
Steve Carlton   42.88
Paul Molitor     41.97
Bert Blyleven   41.64
Willie Stargell   41.63
Jim Palmer     40.27
Gaylord Perry   40.18
Carl Yastrzemski 38.44
Joe Torre       38.26
Phil Niekro     38.14
Ted Simmons     37.15
Eddie Murray     36.79
Johnny Bench     36.44
Carlton Fisk     35.66
Dave Winfield   35.39
Alan Trammell   33.97
Albert Belle     33.91
Juan Marichal   33.42
Lou Whitaker     33.22
Bobby Grich     32.75
Fergie Jenkins   31.78
Ryne Sandberg   30.69
Orlando Cepeda   30.29
Ron Santo       30.15
Frank Howard     29.72
Nolan Ryan     29.31
Reggie Smith     29.16
Pedro Guerrero   28.73

The Guerrero bar lives! In the previous article, Pedro Guerrero had the fourteenth-highest GWAA score among Hall-eligible players debuting since 1972, a class that included fourteen Hall of Famers. He also has the thirty-eighth highest score among eligible players debuting since 1957, a class that includes thirty-eight Hall of Famers. While in actuality, Guerrero’s poor defense would probably knock him out of Hall of Fame consideration, I think this result provides further justification for 28-29 GWAA being a reasonable place to set the borderline for deserving Hall of Famers. (Incidentally, at one point when I was collecting the data, it looked like Reggie Smith would end up ranking as the lowest-scoring player ahead of the borderline. Too bad it didn’t work out that way—we could have been talking about players surpassing “the Reggie bar.”)

One modification I’ve considered making to the stat would be, for players traded during a season who were above average with one team but below average with another, to only count their above-average stint, in the spirit of only considering a player’s positive contributions. For most players, this would make little if any difference, but the sole exception is Cesar Cedeno. Cedeno’s career GWAA score is 27.70, which puts him just shy of the Guerrero line, but this includes a score of 0.31 wins above average in 1985. That season, Cedeno was 1.75 wins below average with the Reds, but after being traded to the Cardinals, he was worth 2.06 wins above average (in only 82 PAs) the rest of the way. If we only include his stint with St. Louis, his career score jumps to 29.45, above the borderline.

Our third table is a list of all players, eligible and otherwise, in the post-1957 group above the Guerrero bar. My apologies for presenting some of these players’ information in three straight tables, but I think it helps to see how active players stack up against the greats of the past. Hall of Famers are asterisked, players active in 2006 are in bold:

Barry Bonds     123.16
Roger Clemens     71.82
Joe Morgan*      70.17
Greg Maddux     62.61
Mike Piazza     61.07
Frank Thomas     56.38
Alex Rodriguez   55.00
Mike Schmidt*    54.08
George Brett*    53.89
Rickey Henderson   53.43
Tom Seaver*      52.71
Ken Griffey Jr.  52.69
Manny Ramirez     51.96
Randy Johnson     51.65
Gary Sheffield   51.40
Edgar Martinez   50.81
Rod Carew*      50.29
Reggie Jackson*  49.68
Bob Gibson*      48.68
Dick Allen       48.12
Jeff Bagwell     48.12
Wade Boggs*      47.59
Willie McCovey*  47.16
Pedro Martinez   46.91
Barry Larkin     46.58
Cal Ripken Jr.    45.39
Tony Gwynn       44.93
Mark McGwire     44.01
Robin Yount*    43.62
Steve Carlton*    42.88
Paul Molitor*    41.97
Bert Blyleven     41.64
Willie Stargell*  41.63
Chipper Jones     40.78
Jim Palmer*      40.27
Gaylord Perry*    40.18
Pete Rose       39.72
Craig Biggio     39.67
Tom Glavine     38.76
Carl Yastrzemski*  38.44
Joe Torre       38.26
Phil Niekro*    38.14
Jim Edmonds     37.42
Ted Simmons     37.15
Roberto Alomar   36.93
Jim Thome       36.84
Eddie Murray*    36.79
Johnny Bench*    36.44
Kevin Brown     36.41
Albert Pujols     36.13
Jeff Kent       35.83
Carlton Fisk*    35.66
Derek Jeter     35.63
Tim Raines       35.54
Dave Winfield*    35.39
Bernie Williams   35.18
Larry Walker     34.90
Vladimir Guerrero 34.49
Jason Giambi     34.29
Alan Trammell     33.97
Albert Belle     33.91
Curt Schilling   33.68
John Smoltz     33.43
Juan Marichal*    33.42
Lou Whitaker     33.22
Bobby Grich     32.75
Ivan Rodriguez   31.87
Fergie Jenkins*  31.78
Fred McGriff     31.28
Mike Mussina     31.17
Brian Giles     30.75
Sammy Sosa       30.70
Ryne Sandberg*    30.69
Orlando Cepeda*  30.29
Ron Santo       30.15
Frank Howard     29.72
Nolan Ryan*      29.31
Reggie Smith     29.16
Pedro Guerrero   28.73

Unfortunately (at least for the purposes of making this an interesting article), not a single active player moved past the borderline in 2006. The top active player below the line remains Nomar Garciaparra, with a GWAA of 27.44, but that last step is going to be a doozy—with his move to first base, it’s going to be much more difficult for him to put up an above-average RCAP.

Here are all the active players below the Guerrero bar with a GWAA greater than 20—a couple young players with a good shot at the Hall, and some older ones who are going to end their careers just shy:

Nomar Garciaparra 27.44
Bobby Abreu     25.86
Julio Franco     25.41
Todd Helton     24.33
Scott Rolen     24.02
Carlos Delgado   24.01
Moises Alou     23.66
Lance Berkman     23.55
Mariano Rivera   21.87
Jorge Posada     20.87

Finally, one last table, the one that’s most relevant to the timing of this article: all the players on the 2007 Hall of Fame ballot. In some ways, this is the most interesting list of all—it’s fun to see the scores of some of the players who will never get a single Hall vote:

Cal Ripken Jr.  45.39
Tony Gwynn     44.93
Mark McGwire   44.01
Bert Blyleven   41.64
Alan Trammell   33.97
Albert Belle   33.91
Tommy John     28.04
Jim Rice       25.76
Bret Saberhagen 25.21
Dale Murphy     24.98
Andre Dawson   24.80
Bobby Bonilla   24.53
Harold Baines   24.50
Jose Canseco   24.29
Orel Hershiser   24.03
Eric Davis     22.87
Rich Gossage   22.62
Dave Concepcion 21.63
Dave Parker     20.94
Ken Caminiti   20.48
Don Mattingly   19.87
Tony Fernandez   17.23
Jack Morris     17.14
Paul O’Neill   16.69
Steve Garvey   14.52
Lee Smith     14.20
Jay Buhner     9.73
Wally Joyner     6.56
Scott Brosius   5.35
Devon White     4.52
Dante Bichette   3.13
Bobby Witt     2.45

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

Daniel Wind Posted: January 05, 2007 at 04:16 AM | 19 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. Walt Davis Posted: January 05, 2007 at 07:46 AM (#2274593)
Isn't it nice to have those nasty Hall of Fame debates completely resolved once and for all?

Done and done. Except this doesn't include defense or baserunning does it?
   2. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame) Posted: January 05, 2007 at 08:40 AM (#2274614)
Not the most scientific evaluation system out there, but it seems to do a pretty good job of measuring the man on the street's opinion. By that I mean that if you'd asked me to rank this year's HoF eligibles off the top of my head, I'd have come up with something darn close to that last list in the article.
   3. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: January 05, 2007 at 09:08 AM (#2274619)
Holy cow, Albert Pujols.
   4. DCW3 Posted: January 05, 2007 at 09:44 AM (#2274628)
Isn't it nice to have those nasty Hall of Fame debates completely resolved once and for all?

Just wanted to make sure everyone understands the massive level of sarcasm in the quoted statement. Fake arrogance can be a little hard to distinguish from the real thing on the Internet...
   5. DKDC Posted: January 05, 2007 at 02:02 PM (#2274641)
I'm used to seeing Cal ranked #1 on HOF eligible lists, but it's still surprising that he comes out #1 on a list that gives zero credit for defense and zero credit for below average seasons with the bat.
   6. Mister High Standards Posted: January 05, 2007 at 03:05 PM (#2274658)
zero credit for below average seasons with the bat


zero credit for below average seasons with the bat RELATIVE to position.
   7. Mister High Standards Posted: January 05, 2007 at 03:24 PM (#2274675)
I guess I don't really understand what this stat is trying to do? Is it trying to predict Hall voting? It certainly isn't measuring win contribution. Also I don't think the name of the stat is accurate, it's not really gross wins is it? Almost like trunctated wins...
   8. studes Posted: January 05, 2007 at 04:06 PM (#2274700)
The link doesn't go back to the original article, but I would point out that a run created above average doesn't have the same win impact as a run saved above average.

It's also interesting that people still use RCAP, when Lee disavowed it a year or two ago. Of course, it's also interesting that he still publishes it.
   9. Designated Sitter (GGC) Posted: January 05, 2007 at 04:17 PM (#2274711)
Does Sinins use a basic Runs Created formula, instead of the one that James uses in WIn Shares?
   10. studes Posted: January 05, 2007 at 04:21 PM (#2274716)
He doesn't use the Win Shares version. He uses the ones for different eras.
   11. Designated Sitter (GGC) Posted: January 05, 2007 at 04:30 PM (#2274720)
Thanks, studes. That's what I thought.
   12. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: January 05, 2007 at 04:45 PM (#2274733)
Just wanted to make sure everyone understands the massive level of sarcasm in the quoted statement. Fake arrogance can be a little hard to distinguish from the real thing on the Internet...

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

I would have to agree with MHS, though, in that I'm not sure of the value of this stat. It's the sorta-total of goodness of a guy in his + years, if I interpret correctly, but I think I could do the same with OPS+, and I wouldn't.
   13. DCW3 Posted: January 05, 2007 at 06:28 PM (#2274861)
I guess I don't really understand what this stat is trying to do? Is it trying to predict Hall voting? It certainly isn't measuring win contribution. Also I don't think the name of the stat is accurate, it's not really gross wins is it? Almost like trunctated wins...

I didn't want to get too much into the purpose of the stat here, since I tried to address that in the previous article and this is really just an update. But, as I said there, I think using this system (with the proper stats) does a better job of balancing a player's peak and career value than an average or replacement-level one. Other systems like JAWS have attempted to do that, but they use a rather arbitrary slice of a player's career to represent his peak. I would say that this might well be the reason that Mr. Ballgame in #2 says that it seems to show a more common-sense listing of players. The example I used in my previous article was Eddie Murray vs. Rafael Palmeiro: I think most people would say that Murray was the significantly superior player, even without delving into the steroid issue, but few average- or replacement-based stats are going to show much difference between them, either because they don't put enough weight on Murray's peak or because they discount his numbers for the bad years at the end of his career.
   14. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: January 05, 2007 at 06:36 PM (#2274877)
I didn't want to get too much into the purpose of the stat here, since I tried to address that in the previous article and this is really just an update.

I tried to follow your link, and it just took me to the article you posted yesterday, and it wasn't readily obvious how to get to the original article.
   15. DCW3 Posted: January 05, 2007 at 06:39 PM (#2274885)
I tried to follow your link, and it just took me to the article you posted yesterday, and it wasn't readily obvious how to get to the original article.

Whoa, that's not right. Here's the correct link.
   16. Daryn Posted: January 05, 2007 at 06:49 PM (#2274899)
Where's Palmeiro?
   17. DCW3 Posted: January 05, 2007 at 09:02 PM (#2275016)
I discussed Palmeiro in the previous article (and hopefully Dan will correct the link)--he comes in at 26.81. Which is rather a surprise, but it indicates how ordinary Palmeiro's peak was, and of course a stat that offered no surprises would be pretty worthless.
   18. Michael Posted: January 05, 2007 at 09:41 PM (#2275039)
I don't know if it is just me but the bold and italics of the players in the lists didn't seem to take.

I also think it is pretty crazy that Albert Pujols is a no brainer HOF in this system even if he gets hit by a bus today.
   19. smileyy Posted: January 06, 2007 at 03:40 AM (#2275233)
I also think it is pretty crazy that Albert Pujols is a no brainer HOF in this system even if he gets hit by a bus today.

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

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Eugene Freedman
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets.

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets.

Page rendered in 0.3908 seconds
67 querie(s) executed