User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.0876 seconds
16 querie(s) executed
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
| ||||||||
Hall of Merit — A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best Thursday, June 24, 20041928 Results - Home Run and Iron Man electedFrank “Home Run” Baker and Joe “Iron Man” McGinnity have been elected to the Hall of Merit. Baker was elected in his first year of eligibility, winning easily with 932 points. McGinnity edged Bobby Wallace for the 2nd spot, 685-647. The order of the returning top 10 was unchanged from 1927. One minor change - to save time for the tiebreakers I only used the named on more ballots criteria. With the new thread it’s tougher to search to track who was named on more ballots. If the tie were for an election spot, I would go through the full procedure. Also, I counted Kelly’s ballot. I know it was late, but it was his first ballot, his computer crashed, and it didn’t change anything significant. It gives us a more accurate picture for next week, so I included it in the tally. Yeah, I’m a softy . . . RK LY Player PTS Bal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 n/e Frank Baker 932 46 25 2 4 2 4 4 1 2 2 2 3 Joe McGinnity 685 44 3 7 4 6 4 2 4 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 4 Bobby Wallace 647 40 6 3 7 3 8 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 Jimmy Sheckard 601 36 1 7 4 5 5 6 1 1 4 1 1 5 6 Sam Thompson 526 36 1 6 5 4 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 6 7 Bob Caruthers 488 34 5 2 2 1 5 1 1 1 2 3 3 1 4 1 2 7 8 Dickey Pearce 433 30 1 5 3 2 1 3 3 1 2 2 3 2 2 8 9 Lip Pike 415 29 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 1 9 10 Jake Beckley 405 28 1 1 2 5 3 4 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 10 11 George Van Haltren 375.5 30 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 3.5 2.5 3 1 11 12 Jimmy Ryan 318.5 25 2 4 1 1 3 2 3 1 2 2.5 1.5 2 12 15 Clark Griffith 282 24 1 1 1 3 3 5 2 1 2 2 1 2 13T 13 Rube Waddell 267 22 1 1 1 4 2 2 3 2 1 1 2 2 13T 16 Roger Bresnahan 267 22 2 2 1 5 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 15 19 Rube Foster 231 18 2 2 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 16 20 Mickey Welch 231 16 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 17 14 Hughie Jennings 226 18 1 3 1 1 3 4 2 1 1 1 18 18 Hugh Duffy 218 21 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 19 23 Cupid Childs 214 21 1 1 3 2 1 2 4 4 3 20 17 Bill Monroe 187 17 1 1 2 2 1 4 2 1 3 21 21 Larry Doyle 168 14 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 22 22 Pete Browning 171 12 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 23 24 Tommy Leach 149 15 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 1 24 25 Eddie Cicotte 146 12 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 25 27 Charley Jones 140 12 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 26 26 Gavy Cravath 115 10 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 27 29 Addie Joss 83 8 1 2 1 3 1 28 28 Ed Williamson 78 9 1 3 3 1 1 29 30 Fielder Jones 78 8 1 1 1 1 1 3 30 32 Frank Chance 71 7 2 1 2 1 1 31 33 John McGraw 64 5 1 1 1 1 1 32 31 Ed Konetchy 54 5 1 2 1 1 33 34 Vic Willis 41 4 1 1 1 1 34 35 Jim McCormick 39 4 1 2 1 35 36 Tommy Bond 27 3 1 1 1 36 38 Lave Cross 24 3 1 1 1 37 40 Silver King 17 2 1 1 38 n/e Donnie Bush 17 1 1 39T 37 Herman Long 16 2 1 1 39T 39 Mike Tiernan 16 2 1 1 41 42 Tom York 15 1 1 42 43T Tony Mullane 10 1 1 43 -- Sol White 8 1 1 44T 41 Levi Meyerle 7 1 1 44T 46T Johnny Evers 7 1 1 44T -- Hippo Vaughn 7 1 1 47T 43T Ray Chapman 6 1 1 47T 45 Harry Wright 6 1 1 47T 46T Jimmy Williams 6 1 1 47T -- Joe Tinker 6 1 1 Dropped Out: none. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head
Posted: June 24, 2004 at 06:06 AM | 52 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News: |
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsReranking Shortstops Ballot
(21 - 5:02pm, Jun 07) Last: DL from MN Reranking First Basemen: Discussion Thread (42 - 2:05pm, Jun 07) Last: Michael J. Binkley's anxiety closet Reranking Shortstops: Discussion Thread (69 - 11:52pm, Jun 06) Last: Guapo 2024 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (118 - 4:10pm, May 30) Last: Kiko Sakata Cal Ripken, Jr. (15 - 12:42am, May 18) Last: The Honorable Ardo New Eligibles Year by Year (996 - 12:23pm, May 12) Last: cookiedabookie Reranking Centerfielders: Results (20 - 10:31am, Apr 28) Last: cookiedabookie Reranking Center Fielders Ballot (20 - 9:30am, Apr 06) Last: DL from MN Ranking Center Fielders in the Hall of Merit - Discussion Thread (77 - 5:45pm, Apr 05) Last: Esteban Rivera Reranking Right Fielders: Results (34 - 2:55am, Mar 30) Last: bjhanke 2023 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (376 - 10:42am, Mar 07) Last: Dr. Chaleeko Reranking Right Fielders: Ballot (21 - 5:20pm, Mar 01) Last: DL from MN Ranking Right Fielders in the Hall of Merit - Discussion thread (71 - 9:47pm, Feb 28) Last: Guapo Dobie Moore (239 - 10:40am, Feb 11) Last: Mike Webber Ranking Left Fielders in the Hall of Merit - Discussion thread (96 - 12:21pm, Feb 08) Last: DL from MN |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.0876 seconds |
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. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: June 24, 2004 at 06:19 AM (#695723)He'll be back in '29, probably as #3.
...but Dickey Pearce is still making his inexorable climb to the top (and I'm not being facetious anymore!)
Larry Benton starts for the Giants, backed by an offense of Mel Ott, Freddy Lindstrom, Travis Jackson, Lefty O'Doul, and Bill Terry.
They're matched up against the Cubs' Sheriff Blake, Hack Wilson, Kiki Cuyler and Gabby Hartnett.
Things like...
Most Votes/Points Received, Lifetime
Teams with most HOMers
Innings Played by Position
etc. If you have the time. :)
I'm also curious, what real-life HOFer has done the poorest in HOM voting? Is it Evers/Tinker who get about one voter per election? Or is there someone not even showing up on the general radar?
I do have "teams with most HOMers," however. This is with my 10-game minimum, and lists where those teams finished..
TEAMS WITH SIX HALL OF MERIT MEN
1874-75 Bos NA White Barnes O'Rourke Wright Spalding McVey FIRST/FIRST
1876 Chicago NL White Barnes Hines Anson Spalding McVey FIRST
1887-89 NY NL Gore O'Rourke Ward Keefe Ewing Connor 4TH/1ST/1ST
1891 Boston NL Kelly Clarkson Nichols Stovey Kelley Bennett FIRST
1891 New York NL Gore O'Rourke Ewing Connor Glasscock Rusie THIRD
1892 New York NL Gore O'Rourke Ewing Rusie Richardson Keeler EIGHTH
TEAMS WITH FIVE HALL OF MERIT MEN
1873 Boston NA White Barnes O'Rourke Wright Spalding FIRST
1877 Chicago NL Hines Barnes Anson Spalding McVey FIFTH
1879 Providence NL Hines O'Rourke Ward Wright Start FIRST
1881-82 Prov NL Hines Ward Wright Radbourn Start SECOND/SECOND
1881-84 Buff NL White O'Rourke Brouthers Richardson Galvin 3/3/5/3
1885-86 NY NL O'Rourke Ward Keefe Ewing Connor 2ND/3RD
1889 Boston NL Kelly Clarkson Brouthers Radbourn Bennett SECOND
1890 Boston PL Kelly Brouthers Radbourn Richardson Stovey FIRST
1890 New York PL Gore O'Rourke Keefe Ewing Connor THIRD
1893 New York NL Kelly Ward Connor Rusie Davis FIFTH
TEAMS WITH FOUR HALL OF MERIT MEN
1871-72 Bos NA Barnes Wright Spalding McVey 3RD/1ST
1879 Cincinnati NL White Barnes Kelly McVey FIFTH
1884-86 Chicago NL Gore Kelly Clarkson Anson 4TH/1ST/1ST
1885 Buffalo NL White Brouthers Richardson Galvin SEVENTH
1886-88 Detroit NL White Brouthers Richardson Bennett 2ND/1ST/5TH
1890 Boston NL Hines Clarkson Nichols Bennett FIFTH
1892 Boston NL Kelly Nichols Stovey Bennett FIRST
1892 Cleveland NL Clarkson Burkett Davis Young SECOND
1892 Philadelphia NL Keefe Connor Hamilton Delahanty FOURTH
1893-94 Cleveland NL Clarkson Ewing Burkett Young 3RD/6TH
1894 New York NL Ward Connor Rusie Davis SECOND
1895 Louisville NL Brouthers Glasscock Clarke Collins TWELFTH
1900 Brooklyn NL Dahlen Keeler Kelley McGinnity FIRST
1910 Cleveland AL Young Flick Lajoie Jackson FIFTH
Top 10 in
SEASONS WITH HOM TEAMMATES
O'Rourke 19 for 78
White 13 for 58
Ward 14 for 51
Connor 11 for 49
Ewing 13 for 47
Kelly 18 for 46
Brouthers 16 for 45
Gore 13 for 43
Richardson 12 for 40
Keefe 7 for 40
I'm just curious, b/c I don't know how Chris Cobb, Joe and others get everything lined up so neatly.
Everything in between turns into a fixed-width fond so things will line up.
Also try "View Source" on the web page if you like the formatting of a specific entry. (Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't)
... and remove all the quotes (some of the double-single-quotes looks like double quotes.
Fixed-width fonts can be ugly for text, because a lower-case L takes up the same width as a Capital M, but character columns automatically line up with these fonts making them good for hand-made tables.
I'll try the '<"p"r"e">' code...I'm a novice at this. Thanks for the info.
I have an average score for every player-year, based on percentage of a perfect score [Score / (24*Ballots)].
Baker's Final Score is 82.6%, since this was his score in his only year of eligibility. Joe Jackson has a Final Score of 54.3% (Avg. of 34.2% in '26 & 74.4% in '27). Players get a Score of 0.0% in a year when they recieve no vote (so not getting a vote every year continues to lower your average). Make sense?
Results
149 players have received a vote from 1898-1928.
The top scores in my system are the shoo-in first balloters:
The top scores of players who were involved in at least 2 elections (Led by the guys who were first eligible alongside a shoo-in):
Everyone who has received an average score of 40.0% or greater is in the Hall of Merit, except for B.Wallace (49.6%, #49), J.Sheckard (43.9%, #53), and S.Thompson (40.7%, #55). The lowest HoM Score to date is F.Grant (40.7%, #54). Pearce (18.6%, #66) will blow this mark away if he gets elected before '32; he averaged only 7.1% in his first 10 elections and has been playing catchup ever since.
About 1/3 of players receiving HoM votes have an average score less than 1.0%. The real life HoFer who has scored the worst is Candy Cummings (0.0%), who received a 1/6 of a vote in 1898.
Tommy McCarthy (0.0%) has done better than only 4 other players in HoM voting (B.Sunday, C.Buffinton, C.Welch, C.Cummings). Tinker (0.4%, #113) & Evers (0.6%, #104) are fairing relatively well compared to Tommy. Happy Jack Chesbro (0.1%, #127) grabbed a HoM vote also.
For most total points, a best guess is average score times a count of ballots.
And finally, the top ten returning:
Year - Player - Number
1922 - Him - 0871
1924 - Other - 0111
My concern is that in the NA, he was often not even the best position player on his team (based on WS)...and those should have been his prime years.
In addition, he played somewhere from age 21-25 and I've given him the same sort of season length-adjusted stats he had in 1871 for those five years. The WS and WARP (and counting stats) he accumulates get him on the bottom of my ballot, but I'm inclined to discount those numbers because (1) they are purely speculative and there ought to be an uncertainty discount, (2) it assumes he would do at ages 21-25 what he did at age 26, even though historically those are less productive years than age 26 and (3) he was playing in a fairly loosely organized league and against regionally-narrow competition (not to be ignored, but discounted at least).
He's 24th on my ballot right now. I'm not arguing against him...just reevaluating objectively.
What are you using for NA Win Shares?
Here's what his teams look like to me from 1871 on:
1871: hits .377/.400/.654. i don't think there's any doubt he's the best player on his team.
1872: hits .292/.299/.441. both Davy Force (.432/.438/.495) and George Hall (.336/.344/.464) have beter years.
1873: hits .315/.331/.462. HOMer Cal McVey is the best player on the team, Everett Mills's batting numbers are better than Pike's, but Pike still leads the team in total bases and stolen bases.
1874: hits .355/.368/.504. leads the team in most offensive categories.
1875: hits .346/.352/.494. no one else on the team hits over .250.
1876: hits .323/.341/.472. leads the team in every significant offensive category except walks and runs.
1877: hits .298/.321/.420. Charley Jones and Jack Manning have better years, but Pike still leads the team in Total Bases, Times On Base and Home Runs.
1878: hits .324/.342/.372 for Cincinnati, but only played half the season there and his career totally falls apart after moving to Providence. His rate stats in Cincy are worse than Charley Jones, about a match with McVey and Deacon White.
So, I've got him as the best player on his team in 1871, 1874, 1875, 1876. 3rd best in 1872, 1873, 1877, and 1878.
for Pike's pre-NA numbers, I'd refer to the stats David Foss posted which show Pike as much the same as the player he was in the 1870s: lots of power, lots of speed.
I wouldn't worry about comparing him to an age-26 peak either, seems to me that players peaked earlier in the 1870s, though that could just be an illusion.
< pre >
player team hits
jeff padres 1432
bob mets 987
chris As 56
< pre >
I've calculated WS for 1871-1873 (and about half of 1874...still working on it).
Here are Pike's numbers for 1871-1873, and the position players on his team with equal or better WS.
1871: 6 WS (tied with Steve King)
1872: 8 WS (Tom York has 10, George Hall has 9, Dick Higham has 8, and John Radcliff has 8)
1873: 8 WS (Davey Force has 11, Tom Carey has 9, Cal McVey has 9, Tom York has 10 and Everett Mills has 8)
So he's tied for best position player on the 6th place NA team, tied for third best position player on the 3d place NA team, and tied for fifth best position player on the 3rd place NA team. Of the comparison players, only McVey has been elected.
We'll see what 1874 and 1875 bring in WS (if I ever get around to it) -- I know they were better. And certainly he also had a very good 1876. But the foregoing is a concern for me when projecting backwards his accomplishments, because those are three significant years during a peak (ages 26-28).
Maybe you are right...he was outstanding from 21-25, decent from 26-28, and then outstanding again 29-31, but that's a very odd pattern.
Based on WS by age:
1. Players born 1890 and before, WS ages 20-25:
Average = 8.80 WS
2. Players born 1890 and before, WS ages 26-31:
Average = 10.91 WS
3. Players born 1880 and before, WS ages 20-25:
Average = 9.52 WS
4. Players born 1880 and before, WS ages 26-31:
Average = 11.29 WS
5. Players born 1870 and before, WS ages 20-25:
Average = 9.78 WS
6. Players born 1870 and before, WS ages 26-31:
Average = 11.05 WS
None of this includes NA Win Shares, of course. Also, it does include pitchers, who probably have a different maturity level.
However, based solely on the information above, it appears that players born before 1890 have essentially the same career progression, age-wise, as players throughout MLB history.
Well, I'm using a modified version of BP's stats (any negative values are converted into zeroes) using BRAR, FRAR and PRAR) for Pike's NA years. I have Pike as the best rightfielder in 1871 and 1873 and the best centerfielder in 1874 and 1875.
For the NL, (using WS * WS per 162 games) I have him as the best centerfielder in 1876. When you add his pre-NA performance, that's enough for me to place him high on my ballot.
In 1871 and 1873, where does he rank among all outfielders? For instance, if he's the best rightfielder those two years but the 5th best outfielder overall, that wouldn't be as impressive. If you don't have the information handy, that's okay. I'm just curious.
In WS for 1871, he's tied for 3rd among all outfielders (with George Hall) and behind King and Treacey.
In WS for 1872, he ranks 5th among all outfielders. He's behind York, Eggler, Cuthbert and Leonard.
In WS for 1873, he ranks 5th or 6th among all outfielders (depending on whether you include Spalding in the outfielders...he was mostly a pitcher, but has almost as many hitting WS as Pike). He's behind York, Eggler, Gedney and Fisher.
When you add his pre-NA performance, that's enough for me to place him high on my ballot.
Can you elaborate on this a little bit? All I have is David Foss' data which seems to indicate he wasn't much better than the 3rd best position player on his team from 1866-1869 (though 1867 is confusing b/c he played on two teams, so I ranked him based on his combined R/G). He was behind (or comparable to) guys like McBride, Hayhurst, Wolters, Hunt, McMahon, Swandell, Devyr and Start.
Anyway, I'm pretty clear that he was a top player in 1870, 1875 and 1876 (and I'm not sure about 1874). But what I'm struggling with in all of the above is (1) he doesn't appear to be even the second best position player on his team from 1866-1869 and 1871-1873 (7 of his 11 documented years) and (2) virtually every position player he trails (or is comparable to) in those years is someone that we haven't seriously considered for the HoM.
I have him as second best in '71 (extremely close to Fred Treacey) and fifth in 1873 (York and Gedney were truly better, while Pabor and Eggler were basically equals with Pike).
To be honest, I haven't used David's numbers for Foss yet. I've been giving him credit for roughly half a usual league leading performance in my system. I thought it was a conservative way of giving him credit for those years since (at the time) I didn't really know how great he was before the NA.
If anything, David's numbers would probably help him some (though not enough to move up one more slot on my ballot).
But what I'm struggling with in all of the above is (1) he doesn't appear to be even the second best position player on his team from 1866-1869
He was a third baseman for 1866-67, a leftfielder in '68 and a second baseman for '69-70, so his offensive numbers were created while he was at more demanding positions than he played later on. If he had been playing right field the whole time, then I think you would have a good point about him.
The basic gist of it was that the WARP numbers make the difference between Pike and his teammates look either smaller or non-existent compared to the WS numbers Jeff posted.
And also that the players Pike trailed in those offseasons (1872-1873 are his worst NA years) were pretty good players. Especially McVey, York and Force (who had two phenomenal years, his only two good years, when he was Pike's teammate).
Most of them just didn't play long enough (2, 5, 7 seasons as opposed to Pike's 13) to earn HOM consideration.
This is interesting. Through now, I've been skeptical about giving Pike too much credit for his pre-NA years because I figured he wouldn't have been as good those years as he later years, but if this is true, I'll have to considerably increase my estimation of him. Even with the new numbers now available for him I've been skittish on giving him too much credit because I wasn't sure due to quality-of-competition concerns.
My inference is that, prior to the lively ball era, batting average was a larger component of offensive value than it later became, so that the young-player skills of bat speed and foot speed were typically more important than the old-player skills of power-hitting and plate discipline.
Makes sense. Pike might make my ballot yet. Maybe not this year, but by 1932. . . . Reading on, Jeff M's post #27 seems to contradict this, so I'll have to just take it under consideration for now. . . . But I'm more willing to buy into how good he was prior to the NA.
Howie,
I just remembered that I was keeping a running tally of points for each year. I just had to total them up and here they are.
Through 1928
So active leaders are thus...
I had a hunch many 'years' ago that Thompson would be the perfect storm of good, but not good enough.
Through 1928
Thompson 11720
Caruthers 9429
Pike 7943
Duffy 7080.5
Pearce 6232
Ryan 6129
Browning 6115.5
Van Haltren 5826.5
Jennings 5606
Wallace 5105
Sheckard 5007
Beckley 4673
Waddell 3874
Griffith 3343
Welch 3280
Williamson 3145
McCormick 2806
Looks like in a few years (unless something drastic happens) he'll be good enough.
But, you never know.
Well, Murph, if Thompson ever DOES get elected, he'll still have thrown a number up there that will make 755 look like child's play!
I doubt it. If it looks like Caruthers will get in, the enemies of Freedom Bob will unleash a smear campaign that would make our political parties look like pikers. We'll be seeing references to Saddam Hussein, Monica Lewinsky, WMD, Watergate, 9/11, hangovers, rude cab driver's and stubbed toes. ;-)
Not so sure about Thompson and Pike. I like them (#1-#2 on my ballot) but I have a feeling similar players will be eligible in the future which will water down their support.
Just catching up to this thread. As to your question about Pike vs. all outfielders...
For this type of analysis, I use WARP2 basic numbers (as we are comparing within a season, so timelining is not a problem, only league quality, and I've yet to be convinced that anyone does a better job contrasting league quality than Davenport. But please convince me. Really.) extended out from the teams actual games played to 162 at the 2/3 power, like the old BP instead of the adjusted. For position players I sum BRAR+FRAA, and I also sum BRAA+FRAR, and take whichever number is greater. Now, for 99% of players it is the first number, but I don't want to shortchange anyone. For OF, I sum up their performance at all 3 positions.
As to Pike, I have him second among all OF in 1871 (to Fred Treacey), off the ballot in '72. He is third in both '73 (to Count Gedney and Tom York) and '74 (to Cal McVey and John McMullin). He is the best OF in the game in both '75 (by a lot over Tom York) and '76 (by a liitle over Paul Hines and Dick Higham).
I can't do that, but I can explain my concerns. I have two primary concerns with the translation from WARP1 to WARP2:
1. I don't know what the formula is. Which part is timelining and which part is league quality? As you said, right now the timelining issue is not as big, but league quality is. And soon, timeling will be a significant issue because we've got some lingering early 19th century players who will be compared to 20th century players and will be injured by the timeline.
2. The league discounts are, in my opinion and best I can tell, too large. And without knowing how they were arrived at, I'm skeptical. Example: Pete Browning has his WARP1 value chopped in half in the transition to WARP2. That just seems inappropriate for a guy that we all KNOW could hit in any league against any pitching. He played in the PL -- a stronger league -- at the end of his career and was a dominant hitter.
Maybe those league quality adjustments are right, but I have a natural tendency to not apply a discount, statistical method, etc., without having a grasp on how it was developed.
As to Pike, I have him second among all OF in 1871...[etc]
Those rankings appear reasonable, though a little more favorable than WS for 1871-1873. My concern, as mentioned, is that when you look at his relative rank in the pre-NA years as well, there's always someone (or two or three) who are better on his team (and often at his position), and most of those people aren't being considered for the HoM.
John Murphy made a good point about the pre-NA years and Pike playing 2b, and I don't have the data to rank him among second basemen during that time. But he was rarely better than third best on his team in the pre-NA years.
Anyway, I've got him in the mid-20s because his career doesn't scream HoMer to me.
That's why I put "for this type of analysis".
All of that said, I don't think that ranking Pike in the mid 20s is unreasonable at all. I've got him top 10 myself, but I'm swayed by players who were the best at their positions for a chunk of time (in Pike's case, 5 of 6 fully documented years, plus more before 1871).
I guess I'm confused a little. I thought in #46 you were asking for reasons we might not trust the league quality discounts in WARP2, so that's why I said what I said in post #47.
I agree that if you are only comparing Lip to his teammates and other players in the league in the same year, it doesn't hurt to use WARP2. But in that case, what advantage do you see in using WARP2 over WARP1 if the adjustments don't matter? He ought to rank the same in WARP1, WARP2 and WARP3 vis-a-vis Treacey in '71, Gedney in '73, etc. (By the way, do you think Gedney was actually a "count"?)
Anyway, I'm not sure we're really disagreeing about anything. For the record, I adjust WARP1 for season length using a .75 exponent, which is close to your 2/3. So I approximate WARP3, without the interim adjustments made from WARP1 to WARP2. Also, I don't apply season length adjustments to WARP and WS for pitchers in the early years when they are pitching practically every game and probably getting too much credit for "starting the action".
For the record, another key reason that I use WARP2 is because that's the only way that batting stats are available by position. One of my longer-term projects is to convert my postional hitting data to WARP1 numbers, so that I can replicate my current model using all WARP1 numbers (adjusted my way). That hasn't become necessary yet, but if I see my rankings move over time to the point where a decent '40s player ranks ahead of an 1880s or '90s star, I'll make the switchover from WARP2 to WARP1.
In case you respond to either of the two conversations that we've got going, I'm now out for the weekend. Got a tournament in Bowling Green, OH (woo!), and tomorrow is Canada Day anyway...
No arguments for or against Pike here. Just wanted to point out that I've found a great biography of him at
SABR's Baseball Biography Project
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main