@daltex said:
Palmeiro and McGwire have perceived PED problems, but why on earth put McGriff in before Will Clark and (especially) Olerud?
Really?
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
.........McGriff has 10,174 career plate appearances and a 134 OPS+. Run Expectancy in all 24 base/out situations 494 Runs
Olerud has 9,063 career plate appearances and a 129 OPS+. Run Expectancy in all 24 base/out situations 405 Runs
Will clark has 8,283 career plate appearances and a 137 OPS+. Run Expectancy in all 24 base/out situations 455 Runs.........
Delgado has 8,657 career plate appearances and a 138 OPS+. Run Expectancy in all 24 base/out situations 480 Runs
Keith Hernandez was effectively done as MLB player at age 34. He had two awful part time seasons at age 35 and 36. He should not be getting all this 'credit' for his lifetime OPS etc..or any of his percentages.
Even Hernandez's Run Expectancy was saved by retiring early. Run expectancy is part rate stat and part counting stat.
In those two awful part time years at the end Hernandez was negative 1.7 and negative 8.9 in his run expectancy. Imagine him playing 160 games in those two years and how bad it would sink.
Can you imagine what his Run Expectancy would be playing another five full time years after that??
There is definitely some unknown value of being THE 'MAN' in the lineup. We know Cal Ripken did not receive an single IBB from 1982-1985 when Eddie Murray was batting behind him. We know Murray was THE man in that lineup. But there is no way to quantify that. No way. We know it certainly made pitchers treat Ripken differently and he got to hit in the most opportune times when they were there, whereas Murray would get the bat taken out of his hands more often.
Hernandez was never that guy. He didn't have enough power to be him. McGriff, yes, he was that man in several of his lineups.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
.........McGriff has 10,174 career plate appearances and a 134 OPS+. Run Expectancy in all 24 base/out situations 494 Runs
Olerud has 9,063 career plate appearances and a 129 OPS+. Run Expectancy in all 24 base/out situations 405 Runs
Will clark has 8,283 career plate appearances and a 137 OPS+. Run Expectancy in all 24 base/out situations 455 Runs.........
Delgado has 8,657 career plate appearances and a 138 OPS+. Run Expectancy in all 24 base/out situations 480 Runs
Yeah, he's pretty darn good too
Delgado actually looks a little better!
Little shorter career better power.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
.........McGriff has 10,174 career plate appearances and a 134 OPS+. Run Expectancy in all 24 base/out situations 494 Runs
Olerud has 9,063 career plate appearances and a 129 OPS+. Run Expectancy in all 24 base/out situations 405 Runs
Will clark has 8,283 career plate appearances and a 137 OPS+. Run Expectancy in all 24 base/out situations 455 Runs.........
Delgado has 8,657 career plate appearances and a 138 OPS+. Run Expectancy in all 24 base/out situations 480 Runs
Yeah, he's pretty darn good too
Delgado actually looks a little better!
Little shorter career better power.
Delgado is right there. 471 Run Expectancy runs. He also left the game while he could still hit.
You are putting too much stock into the defensive numbers.
McGriff has 10,174 career plate appearances and a 134 OPS+. Run Expectancy in all 24 base/out situations 494 Runs
Olerud has 9,063 career plate appearances and a 129 OPS+. Run Expectancy in all 24 base/out situations 405 Runs
Will clark has 8,283 career plate appearances and a 137 OPS+. Run Expectancy in all 24 base/out situations 455 Runs
There isn't enough defensive value from the same position to close the offensive lead that McGriff has over them.
They played in basically the same era.
One could construct a case that they are similar, but there is zero case that can e made that either Clark or Olerud were clearly better.
As it stands now, McGriff clearly has them beat in offense.
>
Point of order, McGriff has Clark beat in CAREER offense. In peak offense and in average offense, Clark has McGriff beat. This is subjective, but based on how I weight these things, I think Clark was clearly better than McGriff. And note that Clark's last season was a great year (33 Run Expectancy); he went out as a great player. The difference between McGriff and Clark is a 40 Run Expectancy over roughly 4 seasons. That has some value, but not that much; a first baseman who puts up a Run Expectancy of 10 each season is not very good. "Average" includes everyone; average for a first baseman is surely greater than 10. Note, too, that despite his shorter career, Clark has McGriff beat in WPA.
I don't want to make too big a deal of it because McGriff was an excellent hitter, and I don't mind at all that he made the HOF. But in a hypothetical draft, knowing how each of them will hit in every future season, I'm drafting Clark, and I wouldn't hesitate to do so.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Will Clark is not a HOFer. Mark Grace isn't either, but regardless of any numbers you could bring up.... he was a better player than Will Clark. Fred McGriff is a very deserving HOFer.
@baz518 said:
Mark Grace isn't either, but regardless of any numbers you could bring up.... he was a better player than Will Clark.
No, he wasn't. There is no number you could bring up that shows that he was, so I understand why you want to dismiss "numbers" as evidence, but without numbers, what have you got?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@baz518 said:
Mark Grace isn't either, but regardless of any numbers you could bring up.... he was a better player than Will Clark.
No, he wasn't. There is no number you could bring up that shows that he was, so I understand why you want to dismiss "numbers" as evidence, but without numbers, what have you got?
Never thought I would ‘like’ a Dallas post but he is correct about Will Clark so what the heck.
You are putting too much stock into the defensive numbers.
McGriff has 10,174 career plate appearances and a 134 OPS+. Run Expectancy in all 24 base/out situations 494 Runs
Olerud has 9,063 career plate appearances and a 129 OPS+. Run Expectancy in all 24 base/out situations 405 Runs
Will clark has 8,283 career plate appearances and a 137 OPS+. Run Expectancy in all 24 base/out situations 455 Runs
There isn't enough defensive value from the same position to close the offensive lead that McGriff has over them.
They played in basically the same era.
One could construct a case that they are similar, but there is zero case that can e made that either Clark or Olerud were clearly better.
As it stands now, McGriff clearly has them beat in offense.
>
Point of order, McGriff has Clark beat in CAREER offense. In peak offense and in average offense, Clark has McGriff beat. This is subjective, but based on how I weight these things, I think Clark was clearly better than McGriff. And note that Clark's last season was a great year (33 Run Expectancy); he went out as a great player. The difference between McGriff and Clark is a 40 Run Expectancy over roughly 4 seasons. That has some value, but not that much; a first baseman who puts up a Run Expectancy of 10 each season is not very good. "Average" includes everyone; average for a first baseman is surely greater than 10. Note, too, that despite his shorter career, Clark has McGriff beat in WPA.
I don't want to make too big a deal of it because McGriff was an excellent hitter, and I don't mind at all that he made the HOF. But in a hypothetical draft, knowing how each of them will hit in every future season, I'm drafting Clark, and I wouldn't hesitate to do so.
Clark's seven consecutive year peak Run Expectancy was 288.7
McGriff's seven consecutive year Run Expectancy was 293.7(and that includes the strike shortened 1994 season)
The lion's share of Clark's peak was in one season. Can't take that away from him and he did have a better two year peak...but I never heard of a one year or two year peak as carrying a ton of weight.
McGriff wins 16-3 head to head best offensive seasons.
Clark did retire with more in the tank, but that most likely would not have given him any edge over the 7 year peak, and it also means he escaped the inevitable negative years at the very very end.
The fact that Carlos Delgado fell off the ballot after one year and a measly 3.8% of the votes is an absolute crime. I'm not saying he should definitely get in, but he deserves a serious look.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
@baz518 said:
Mark Grace isn't either, but regardless of any numbers you could bring up.... he was a better player than Will Clark.
No, he wasn't. There is no number you could bring up that shows that he was, so I understand why you want to dismiss "numbers" as evidence, but without numbers, what have you got?
I have nothing. He has a ring. No number can quantify defense or leadership. No metric accurately accounts for April baseball in Wrigley Field or having to scoop Shawon Dunstons lasers. No number or metric accurately weights clutch-ness. I guess I'll just believe my head over numbers. Will Clark had better HR power than Mark, but that is about it.
@baz518 said:
Mark Grace isn't either, but regardless of any numbers you could bring up.... he was a better player than Will Clark.
No, he wasn't. There is no number you could bring up that shows that he was, so I understand why you want to dismiss "numbers" as evidence, but without numbers, what have you got?
I have nothing. He has a ring. No number can quantify defense or leadership. No metric accurately accounts for April baseball in Wrigley Field or having to scoop Shawon Dunstons lasers. No number or metric accurately weights clutch-ness. I guess I'll just believe my head over numbers. Will Clark had better HR power than Mark, but that is about it.
Comparison between Grace and Clark, with McGriff thrown in just for fun.
Grace was a MUCH better defensive 1B than Clark, but it doesn't make up for the massive gulf in OPS+. 20 points is huge. Same batting average and OBP, though Grace played in a superior offensive environment, but Clark outslugged Grace by 55 points!
WAR overrates McGriff defensively and underrates Clark. (Clark was slightly but consistently above average; McGriff was terrible.)
IMO, it's clear that none of them belongs in the HoF, and I'm not sure if Grace belongs in your Hall of Very Good. I think he's just a bit below that level, but if your HoVG includes the likes of Adrian Gonzalez, Gil Hodges, Boog Powell, and George Scott than it ought to include Grace, too.
The lion's share of Clark's peak was in one season. Can't take that away from him and he did have a better two year peak...but I never heard of a one year or two year peak as carrying a ton of weight.
McGriff wins 16-3 head to head best offensive seasons.
Clark did retire with more in the tank, but that most likely would not have given him any edge over the 7 year peak, and it also means he escaped the inevitable negative years at the very very end.
I'd never heard "peak" referring to a seventh best season before, but I guess it's not defined so OK. The way I define "peak", Clark's was much higher than McGriff's.
But more importantly, Run Expectancy, while a fine stat for what it is, is not park/era adjusted so it makes McGriff look better and Clark a lot worse. Which is why Clark beats McGriff in WPA despite having a shorter career.
In Win Shares, Clark destroys McGriff for their top 3 seasons (i.e., their peaks), beats him for another three, then fades away slowly and McGriff edges him out for the average/non-star portions of their careers.
In one of my larger time-sucking posts several years ago I compared each player's Win Shares in their best season, 2nd best season, etc. to every other player and ranked which players were, on that basis, most similar to each other player. The way I did it, the best season gets a lot of weight, the 2nd best season gets a little less weight, and so on. How similar two players were in their 11th best seasons, I figured, was neither important nor interesting, it was similarity in the seasons that made the player worth talking about that matters.
Five most similar hitters to Will Clark: Yastrzemski, Medwick, McCovey, Gwynn, Snider
Five most similar hitters to Fred McGriff: Reggie Smith, Andre Dawson, Dwight Evans, Darrell Evans, Mark Grace
McGriff played a fair amount longer, and he was good enough in those extra years to give them some weight. But Clark was SO MUCH better than McGriff at their peaks that McGriff's longevity doesn't do it for me. Anyone else is free to take McGriff, and there's no objective standard that says they're wrong, but I don't even see them as particularly close. Don Sutton beats Sandy Koufax head-to-head in more season than Koufax beats Sutton, and has more career runs saved, too. But I don't see Sutton as close to Koufax, either.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@nam812 said: @dallasactuary what are your thoughts on Carlos Delgado in comparison to those players already mentioned, and for hall of fame consideration?
I think he's better than McGriff, and close to Clark, so I think he deserves consideration. Delgado, though, falls into a group that I think should get HOF consideration, but the HOF itself generally doesn't. Delgado's 7,283 ABs are very, very low for a HOFer. Why the HOF wants a player to hang around playing at a less than HOF level for several years I don't know, and don't understand, but they do. Had he stuck around, even playing hurt and stinking up the place, long enough to hit 27 more HR, he'd sail in, but because he retired as he should have, he's questionable.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Sad fact is that the title of the thread was objectively true because the ballot was bifurcated between the star power (Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, Palmeiro) and the vastly worse players who actually had a chance to get in. The selection committee should be ashamed of itself. It should have known that there was no chance that Bonds, Clemens, or Schilling would get fair consideration of what they did on the field (and many of us are perfectly fine with that; others outraged) and put players who are legitimately overlooked and might have been given a fair shake.
I'm not sure if Dwight Evans, Grich, and Whitaker are quite in the proper era, but even though far worse players than the above, their consideration wouldn't have been considered a slap in the face of the BBWAA. Palmeiro might even have gone in had he not had to compete with Bonds and Clemens.
The lion's share of Clark's peak was in one season. Can't take that away from him and he did have a better two year peak...but I never heard of a one year or two year peak as carrying a ton of weight.
McGriff wins 16-3 head to head best offensive seasons.
Clark did retire with more in the tank, but that most likely would not have given him any edge over the 7 year peak, and it also means he escaped the inevitable negative years at the very very end.
I'd never heard "peak" referring to a seventh best season before, but I guess it's not defined so OK. The way I define "peak", Clark's was much higher than McGriff's.
But more importantly, Run Expectancy, while a fine stat for what it is, is not park/era adjusted so it makes McGriff look better and Clark a lot worse. Which is why Clark beats McGriff in WPA despite having a shorter career.
In Win Shares, Clark destroys McGriff for their top 3 seasons (i.e., their peaks), beats him for another three, then fades away slowly and McGriff edges him out for the average/non-star portions of their careers.
In one of my larger time-sucking posts several years ago I compared each player's Win Shares in their best season, 2nd best season, etc. to every other player and ranked which players were, on that basis, most similar to each other player. The way I did it, the best season gets a lot of weight, the 2nd best season gets a little less weight, and so on. How similar two players were in their 11th best seasons, I figured, was neither important nor interesting, it was similarity in the seasons that made the player worth talking about that matters.
Five most similar hitters to Will Clark: Yastrzemski, Medwick, McCovey, Gwynn, Snider
Five most similar hitters to Fred McGriff: Reggie Smith, Andre Dawson, Dwight Evans, Darrell Evans, Mark Grace
McGriff played a fair amount longer, and he was good enough in those extra years to give them some weight. But Clark was SO MUCH better than McGriff at their peaks that McGriff's longevity doesn't do it for me. Anyone else is free to take McGriff, and there's no objective standard that says they're wrong, but I don't even see them as particularly close. Don Sutton beats Sandy Koufax head-to-head in more season than Koufax beats Sutton, and has more career runs saved, too. But I don't see Sutton as close to Koufax, either.
Run expectancy is both park adjusted and accounts for the run scoring environment. Looking at both of those comparing in same era and same years length, they are better than Winshares.
Seven year peak is not who the best is in their seventh year, it is their best seven years ,which is an accurate measurement of a peak and takes care of the longevity factor that muddles things. It is more valuable than a three year peak.
As it stands, McGriff beats Clark in both OPS+ and RE24(base out states) in their best seven years. It accounts for parks and era. It was the exact same era anyway, so that shouldn't even matter here.
If you don't like best seven years, then McGriff beats Clark in best five year peak too. Best six years too. Best eight year peak, nine year peak, 10 year peak, 11 year peak too etc.
Clark is going to win best three year peak based on basically just one incredible season.
Run expectancy is both park adjusted and accounts for the run scoring environment. Looking at both of those comparing in same era and same years length, they are better than Winshares.
We'll have to agree to disagree about what "peak" means.
Regarding RE24, I misspoke when I said it wasn't park/era adjusted. What I meant was that it was not properly park/era adjusted. Yes, when McGriff got a bases empty single that was more likely to result in a run than when Clark got a bases empty single, because runs were more likely in all situations for McGriff than for Clark. So McGriff gets an advantage for playing in an easier park/era - more runs means more run expectancy for everything a hitter does. But what Clark did in his relatively run scarce environment, while it may have produced fewer runs, produced more wins.
In any event, even focusing on RE24, Clark produced .055 expected runs per PA and McGriff produced .049 expected runs per plate appearance. Clark produced more expected runs each time he came up, and in a relatively run scarce environment. Clark was, by a fairly significant margin, a better run producer than McGriff, and he helped his team win more games than McGriff. WPA, and Win Shares, show that.
McGriff played longer, and nobody can take that away from him. Any argument that McGriff was better than Clark begins, and ends, on that point.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Run expectancy is both park adjusted and accounts for the run scoring environment. Looking at both of those comparing in same era and same years length, they are better than Winshares.
We'll have to agree to disagree about what "peak" means.
Regarding RE24, I misspoke when I said it wasn't park/era adjusted. What I meant was that it was not properly park/era adjusted. Yes, when McGriff got a bases empty single that was more likely to result in a run than when Clark got a bases empty single, because runs were more likely in all situations for McGriff than for Clark. So McGriff gets an advantage for playing in an easier park/era - more runs means more run expectancy for everything a hitter does. But what Clark did in his relatively run scarce environment, while it may have produced fewer runs, produced more wins.
In any event, even focusing on RE24, Clark produced .055 expected runs per PA and McGriff produced .049 expected runs per plate appearance. Clark produced more expected runs each time he came up, and in a relatively run scarce environment. Clark was, by a fairly significant margin, a better run producer than McGriff, and he helped his team win more games than McGriff. WPA, and Win Shares, show that.
McGriff played longer, and nobody can take that away from him. Any argument that McGriff was better than Clark begins, and ends, on that point.
Not true, Clark only did it better per plate appearance because he didn't suffer any old man years. As pointed out, in their five, six, and seven year peaks, McGriff was better than Clark in both OPS+ and RE24, both when combined, are far more telling than Winshares.
Also not true on what you said about RE24 Overvaluing McGriff's RE24 runs. That scenario you laid out isnt' accurate, as it accounts for the ballpark run scoring environment already. However, the lineup could have an impact. Batting in the middle of the big Red Machine is going to give a hitter more juicy opportunities to elevate that stat(as long as you are an above average hitter). I haven't examined their lineups to see if that matter, and off the top of my head I don't think either had a big advantage there.
OPS is counting the exact value of McGriff and Clark's events. They treat every double equally. McGriff bests Clark in their peaks..
Best five year OPS was .899 for Clark
Best five year OPS was .924 for McGriff.
McGriff was better.
Ballpark factor is not in OPS, but when added, McGriff is still better in their five year peaks, six year peaks, and seven year peaks in OPS+(which includes ballpark and treats every BB,1B,2B,3B, HR, and Out made as pure equals to each other).
Best five year OPS+ was 153 for Will Clark
Best five year OPS+ was 157 for Fred McGriff.
Same era. Same length of time. Mc Griff was better.
Longevity will begin to muddle the rate stat because one played while one was on the couch.....hence whey any five to seven year peak is the most telling of who was better because it eliminates the longevity factor AND it gives a big enough sample size to get an accurate reading(and without having one career season muddle things).
OPS and OPS+ already nails the victory for McGriff since it is the same era and years legnth. RE24 adds more context to it with men on base hitting and McGriff wins that too.
McGriff had a better five year peak, six year peak, and seven year peak in OPS, OPS+ and RE24...that's pretty much all you need when comparing two similar amounts of time and within the same era.
As pertaining to the era, OPS+ can be misleading too(as can Winshares per the era), but in this situation of McGriff and Clark they are almost the exact same stretch of years, being off by just one year. No stat has accounted for the era adjustment properly yet. None. Era adjustments are all estimates, some better than others.
In the end, McGriff had the better career total, and the better five year peak, six year peak, seven year peak, eight year peak, nine year peak, and ten year peak. Any other peak after that is the start of the career portion.
@Darin said:
Man you guys are nerds.
If this is what it’s come to,
let’s just go back to ba, hr and rbi
Mcgriff wins that too(2 of 3).
I was actually going to add that McGriff wins the back of the baseball card stats too. But the point was that he wins the more precise stats in their peaks.
There is some merit to the traditional counting stats. It is a much smaller piece of the puzzle but it is a piece.
@Darin said:
Man you guys are nerds.
If this is what it’s come to,
let’s just go back to ba, hr and rbi
Some of the discussion goes over my head too. I just did not study enough of these new metrics yet to comment. I am also not one to put too much stock in BA, HR and RBIs either as I believe OPS+ is a much more comprehensive metric for that.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
@balco758 said:
I recently had opportunity to spend time socially with David Cone and he couldn't of been more gracious and realistic about the HOF. Class act.
I like David Cone. What did you find out? He may very well be on the ballot next time the ERA committee meets and will have an opportunity to be voted in.
When I saw the names of the committee era for this cycle, seeing that Maddux was on there, I thought that McGriff would have a good chance. It was a unanimous decision, though so it seems there was not a whole lot of convincing needed. It was notable that the top votes went to players who were very far removed from any PED controversy.
I don't know if those finishing in the top three behind McGriff will be on the ballot next year as the selection committee will choose another eight from scratch to be considered by the 16 member era committee.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
@Darin said:
Man you guys are nerds.
If this is what it’s come to,
let’s just go back to ba, hr and rbi
Some of the discussion goes over my head too. I just did not study enough of these new metrics yet to comment. I am also not one to put too much stock in BA, HR and RBIs either as I believe OPS+ is a much more comprehensive metric for that.
OPS does the job. It hits the nail on the head. It is very concrete.
The + really helps to put the run scoring environment into context so you know that the live ball era of 1999 isn't the same as as recent as 1988.
The + helps the era too, but I am becoming more and more convinced that it will never be possible to accurately compare someone from 1933 to someone from 2018.
Ballpark effects in the + have some wiggle room. These are not set in stone. There is some unknown there.
OPS does not accurately measure two careers of different lengths. It also does not accurately account for platoon(Ken Phelps factor). NO RATE STAT DOES...not even batting average.
Also not true on what you said about RE24 Overvaluing McGriff's RE24 runs. That scenario you laid out isnt' accurate, as it accounts for the ballpark run scoring environment already.
No, what I laid out was accurate. RE24 is "ballpark adjusting", but in a way that is the opposite of how it needs to do it in order to compare two hitters. To use an extreme made-up example, imagine that batter 1 plays in a park where an average of 2 runs is scored by each team, and batter 2 plays in a park where the average team scores 4 runs. The run expectancy for any given walk, hit, etc. is going to be half as much for player 1 as it is for player 2. And yes, lineups affect it, too. If player 2 has more runners on base in front of him, then his hits have a higher run expectancy. And if one batter plays in an easier park, he will have more runners on base, hence a higher run expectancy.
When RE24 "ballpark adjusts" it is explicitly constructing a table for each ballpark. In one ballpark a single might be worth 0.2 runs, and in another ballpark it might be worth 0.4 runs. Get a single in the first ballpark, you get 0.2 RE24; get one in the second ballpark, you get 0.4 RE24. That's a "ballpark adjustment" for sure, but it magnifies the ballpark problem rather than solves it (as the "+" in OPS+ attempts to do). Clark had his peak in a very run scarce ballpark, and RE24 penalizes him for that. That's just a fact.
No matter how you measure it, Clark was better than McGriff, and that's leaving aside McGriff's prolific DPs and complete lack of fielding ability, even at first base. Where McGriff wins is on length of career, and the argument that he was better than Clark begins, and ends, on that point. If that matters more to you than it does to me, then McGriff wins.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@baz518 said:
Mark Grace isn't either, but regardless of any numbers you could bring up.... he was a better player than Will Clark.
No, he wasn't. There is no number you could bring up that shows that he was, so I understand why you want to dismiss "numbers" as evidence, but without numbers, what have you got?
Mark Grace had the highest number of hits in a decade and other than Pete Rose every other player that has done that is in the Hall.
@baz518 said:
Mark Grace isn't either, but regardless of any numbers you could bring up.... he was a better player than Will Clark.
No, he wasn't. There is no number you could bring up that shows that he was, so I understand why you want to dismiss "numbers" as evidence, but without numbers, what have you got?
Mark Grace had the highest number of hits in a decade and other than Pete Rose every other player that has done that is in the Hall.
Ah, the Jack Morris argument. Since you bring it up, would you care to name the other players?
@baz518 said:
Mark Grace isn't either, but regardless of any numbers you could bring up.... he was a better player than Will Clark.
No, he wasn't. There is no number you could bring up that shows that he was, so I understand why you want to dismiss "numbers" as evidence, but without numbers, what have you got?
Mark Grace had the highest number of hits in a decade and other than Pete Rose every other player that has done that is in the Hall.
And yet he reached 190 hits only once in that decade. Is that supposed to be impressive?
@baz518 said:
Mark Grace isn't either, but regardless of any numbers you could bring up.... he was a better player than Will Clark.
No, he wasn't. There is no number you could bring up that shows that he was, so I understand why you want to dismiss "numbers" as evidence, but without numbers, what have you got?
Mark Grace had the highest number of hits in a decade and other than Pete Rose every other player that has done that is in the Hall.
Ah, the Jack Morris argument. Since you bring it up, would you care to name the other players?
It’s a decent list:
Derek Jeter
Mark Grace
Robin Yount
Pete Rose
Roberto Clemente
Richie Ashburn
Lou Boudreau
Paul Waner
Rogers Hornsby
@dallasactuary said:
That list looks oddly similar to a "most at bats" list, and oddly dissimilar to a "best hitters" list.
Pete Rose was the only one of those to lead there decade in ABs. At least those numbers are easily accessible and have clear meaning... and unlike most modern "metric" stats, they are unflawwable numbers. Win Shares is inherently biased toward players on better teams. Good for determining a potential MVP for a given year... but not good for comparing players individual abilities across a career. WAR does a disservice to a a whole era of players, like Mark Grace, because for a 20+ year period, replacement value was artificially inflated due to PEDs... in turn devaluing any of the clean players doing right.
And just for the record, I'm not arguing Mark Grace is a HOFer... he enjoyed the nightlife way more than chasing 3000 hits, which was his one shot at the Hall. But he was a better player than Will Clark. Any slight edge offensively only came from having homerun power in a better lineup... he made up tenfold in defense and leadership.
@baz518 said: @dallasactuary said:
That list looks oddly similar to a "most at bats" list, and oddly dissimilar to a "best hitters" list.
Pete Rose was the only one of those to lead there decade in ABs. At least those numbers are easily accessible and have clear meaning... and unlike most modern "metric" stats, they are unflawwable numbers. Win Shares is inherently biased toward players on better teams. Good for determining a potential MVP for a given year... but not good for comparing players individual abilities across a career. WAR does a disservice to a a whole era of players, like Mark Grace, because for a 20+ year period, replacement value was artificially inflated due to PEDs... in turn devaluing any of the clean players doing right.
And just for the record, I'm not arguing Mark Grace is a HOFer... he enjoyed the nightlife way more than chasing 3000 hits, which was his one shot at the Hall. But he was a better player than Will Clark. Any slight edge offensively only came from having homerun power in a better lineup... he made up tenfold in defense and leadership.
Hit totals are included in all the advanced metrics, and of those hits, singles, doubles, triples, and home runs are all given their proper weight, as opposed to just giving them the exact same value by counting them all as 'hits'.
Of course, base on balls, and outs made, which are often ignored by a lot of fans, although ironically they aren't ignored when their home team pitcher is giving up walks and not recording outs, but they are often ignored and always mis-valued by most fans. Those are also included in the advanced metric.
The PED debate is a completely different debate.
As for the hits, keep in mind that Omar Vizquel has more career hits than both Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. That is what happens when you laser focus on just one tiny component of an entire masterpiece.
WAR has its problems, and I always point them out, but it is by far more telling than any single isolated stat like hit totals.
Grace was an excellent player, and ironically again, it is the advanced measurements that gives him his proper due, because he is usually discounted by the typical fan because he did not hit home runs. Thankfully the advanced metrics gives him his proper value for his base on balls and being a tough out, otherwise people would just assume he was a liability due to having little power out of a first baseman in a power era.
And just for the record, I'm not arguing Mark Grace is a HOFer... he enjoyed the nightlife way more than chasing 3000 hits, which was his one shot at the Hall. But he was a better player than Will Clark. Any slight edge offensively only came from having homerun power in a better lineup... he made up tenfold in defense and leadership.
I don't know. I see 18 points in OPS+ as huge. And if that one is too scary, .055 in raw OPS. Grace was a much better defender, Clark better on the basepaths. I don't know much about Clark's leadership, but he had a huge offensive edge.
@baz518 said:
Win Shares is inherently biased toward players on better teams.
It is inherent to Win Shares that good teams will win more games than bad teams. If that assumption rocks your world, then we're probably not going to get very far here. But if you accept that assumption, then there's the really bold assumption that the players (cumulatively) on good teams are better than the players (cumulatively) on bad teams. If you're still with me, then all that's left is the assumption that teams that score more runs than they allow will win. Those are the three assumptions (or, more accurately, observations) that underlie the Win Shares system.
Imagine that you're Tony Perez on one of the best teams ever. Your statement seems to imply that Perez will get more Win Shares than he deserves (from a neutral system). But Perez has to wait his turn while Joe Morgan, Pete Rose, George Foster, Ken Griffey, Dave Concepcion, Johnny Bench, Cesar Geronimo, and Rawly Eastwick get their Win Shares. There's poor Tony with his 57 extra base hits and 91 RBIs watching all the Win Shares get handed out before he gets his paltry 16. Meanwhile Jimmy Wynn, on a very bad Braves team, with 37 extra base hits and 66 RBI, got 18 Win Shares.
So maybe Win Shares favors players on bad teams? No, it doesn't. I could construct 100 examples where good not great players like Perez and Wynn in 1976 get about the same Win Shares, where two bad players on a good team and a bad team get about the same Win Shares, and two great players on a good team and a bad team get about the same Win Shares.
The way to think about is that better teams will win more games, and the team will therefore have more Win Shares. But that team has a lot of good players with a claim on those Win Shares. A bad team won't have as many Win Shares, but if there's a really good player on that team (Carlton on the 1972 Phillies, for example), he'll get a very high share of the smaller pot of Win Shares. It works out the same for any given player whether he's on a good team or a bad team.
The only bias I'm aware of in Win Shares is one that favors closers, but that bias has no effect at all on the Win Shares earned by non-pitchers, it just cheats the other pitchers.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@baz518 said:
Win Shares is inherently biased toward players on better teams.
It is inherent to Win Shares that good teams will win more games than bad teams. If that assumption rocks your world, then we're probably not going to get very far here. But if you accept that assumption, then there's the really bold assumption that the players (cumulatively) on good teams are better than the players (cumulatively) on bad teams. If you're still with me, then all that's left is the assumption that teams that score more runs than they allow will win. Those are the three assumptions (or, more accurately, observations) that underlie the Win Shares system.
Imagine that you're Tony Perez on one of the best teams ever. Your statement seems to imply that Perez will get more Win Shares than he deserves (from a neutral system). But Perez has to wait his turn while Joe Morgan, Pete Rose, George Foster, Ken Griffey, Dave Concepcion, Johnny Bench, Cesar Geronimo, and Rawly Eastwick get their Win Shares. There's poor Tony with his 57 extra base hits and 91 RBIs watching all the Win Shares get handed out before he gets his paltry 16. Meanwhile Jimmy Wynn, on a very bad Braves team, with 37 extra base hits and 66 RBI, got 18 Win Shares.
So maybe Win Shares favors players on bad teams? No, it doesn't. I could construct 100 examples where good not great players like Perez and Wynn in 1976 get about the same Win Shares, where two bad players on a good team and a bad team get about the same Win Shares, and two great players on a good team and a bad team get about the same Win Shares.
The way to think about is that better teams will win more games, and the team will therefore have more Win Shares. But that team has a lot of good players with a claim on those Win Shares. A bad team won't have as many Win Shares, but if there's a really good player on that team (Carlton on the 1972 Phillies, for example), he'll get a very high share of the smaller pot of Win Shares. It works out the same for any given player whether he's on a good team or a bad team.
The only bias I'm aware of in Win Shares is one that favors closers, but that bias has no effect at all on the Win Shares earned by non-pitchers, it just cheats the other pitchers.
@baz518 said:
Win Shares is inherently biased toward players on better teams.
It is inherent to Win Shares that good teams will win more games than bad teams. If that assumption rocks your world, then we're probably not going to get very far here. But if you accept that assumption, then there's the really bold assumption that the players (cumulatively) on good teams are better than the players (cumulatively) on bad teams. If you're still with me, then all that's left is the assumption that teams that score more runs than they allow will win. Those are the three assumptions (or, more accurately, observations) that underlie the Win Shares system.
Imagine that you're Tony Perez on one of the best teams ever. Your statement seems to imply that Perez will get more Win Shares than he deserves (from a neutral system). But Perez has to wait his turn while Joe Morgan, Pete Rose, George Foster, Ken Griffey, Dave Concepcion, Johnny Bench, Cesar Geronimo, and Rawly Eastwick get their Win Shares. There's poor Tony with his 57 extra base hits and 91 RBIs watching all the Win Shares get handed out before he gets his paltry 16. Meanwhile Jimmy Wynn, on a very bad Braves team, with 37 extra base hits and 66 RBI, got 18 Win Shares.
So maybe Win Shares favors players on bad teams? No, it doesn't. I could construct 100 examples where good not great players like Perez and Wynn in 1976 get about the same Win Shares, where two bad players on a good team and a bad team get about the same Win Shares, and two great players on a good team and a bad team get about the same Win Shares.
The way to think about is that better teams will win more games, and the team will therefore have more Win Shares. But that team has a lot of good players with a claim on those Win Shares. A bad team won't have as many Win Shares, but if there's a really good player on that team (Carlton on the 1972 Phillies, for example), he'll get a very high share of the smaller pot of Win Shares. It works out the same for any given player whether he's on a good team or a bad team.
The only bias I'm aware of in Win Shares is one that favors closers, but that bias has no effect at all on the Win Shares earned by non-pitchers, it just cheats the other pitchers.
I agree if Tony Perez is in the Hall of Fame then Mark Grace should be too.
@baz518 said:
Win Shares is inherently biased toward players on better teams.
It is inherent to Win Shares that good teams will win more games than bad teams. If that assumption rocks your world, then we're probably not going to get very far here. But if you accept that assumption, then there's the really bold assumption that the players (cumulatively) on good teams are better than the players (cumulatively) on bad teams. If you're still with me, then all that's left is the assumption that teams that score more runs than they allow will win. Those are the three assumptions (or, more accurately, observations) that underlie the Win Shares system.
Imagine that you're Tony Perez on one of the best teams ever. Your statement seems to imply that Perez will get more Win Shares than he deserves (from a neutral system). But Perez has to wait his turn while Joe Morgan, Pete Rose, George Foster, Ken Griffey, Dave Concepcion, Johnny Bench, Cesar Geronimo, and Rawly Eastwick get their Win Shares. There's poor Tony with his 57 extra base hits and 91 RBIs watching all the Win Shares get handed out before he gets his paltry 16. Meanwhile Jimmy Wynn, on a very bad Braves team, with 37 extra base hits and 66 RBI, got 18 Win Shares.
So maybe Win Shares favors players on bad teams? No, it doesn't. I could construct 100 examples where good not great players like Perez and Wynn in 1976 get about the same Win Shares, where two bad players on a good team and a bad team get about the same Win Shares, and two great players on a good team and a bad team get about the same Win Shares.
The way to think about is that better teams will win more games, and the team will therefore have more Win Shares. But that team has a lot of good players with a claim on those Win Shares. A bad team won't have as many Win Shares, but if there's a really good player on that team (Carlton on the 1972 Phillies, for example), he'll get a very high share of the smaller pot of Win Shares. It works out the same for any given player whether he's on a good team or a bad team.
The only bias I'm aware of in Win Shares is one that favors closers, but that bias has no effect at all on the Win Shares earned by non-pitchers, it just cheats the other pitchers.
Great explanation!
Nothing new, but I guess... still doesn't deny the bias exists and just tries to "assume" it away. Also never addresses the root meaning of the stat... which is determining a players value to their team, within a season. The calculation is based on a finite number... the number of wins in a season. To remove it from that context does a disservice to the the stat. It's a great metric as long as you stick with what it is trying to measure.
Since we're talking hypotheticals (Tony Perez reference)... how many win shares does a player get for going 4-for-4, hitting for the cycle with 3 runs scored and 5 RBI in a 7-8 loss the bullpen blew? What would a player's win share total be if he hit .400 with 50 dingers in a season, but his team couldn't muster up a single win?
Nothing new, but I guess... still doesn't deny the bias exists and just tries to "assume" it away. Also never addresses the root meaning of the stat... which is determining a players value to their team, within a season. The calculation is based on a finite number... the number of wins in a season. To remove it from that context does a disservice to the the stat. It's a great metric as long as you stick with what it is trying to measure.
Um, this is awkward. Yes, I did deny that the bias exists, and was jokingly referring to "assumptions" that were so blindingly obvious that they are in fact merely "observations". So it is what your own eyes and common sense tell you that explains away the bias, not any "assumptions".
And the point of every baseball game is to win. If what a player does advances that cause, then he gets Win Shares for his efforts. If what he does hurts the cause, then he does not. Ultimately, the purpose of each and every stat is to quantify a player's contribution toward winning games. Any stat removed from that context is useless. That Win Shares are so deeply ingrained in that context is why they do such a good job identifying great players/seasons.
Since we're talking hypotheticals (Tony Perez reference)... how many win shares does a player get for going 4-for-4, hitting for the cycle with 3 runs scored and 5 RBI in a 7-8 loss the bullpen blew?
This isn't how Win Shares work - accruing Win Shares game by game or at bat by at bat - so there is no answer to your question. I will say that Tony's WIn Shares at the end of the season will not be affected, or rather will be affected to a degree that would go unnoticed, regardless what the the bullpen did. If the bullpen is so horrible that they blow every game, then see below.
What would a player's win share total be if he hit .400 with 50 dingers in a season, but his team couldn't muster up a single win?
He would have 0 Win Shares. And James even acknowledges that his system, likewise any system, breaks down if there is a team just unimaginably horrible. He cites some 19th Century teams that appeared for one season - or sometimes not even an entire season - and then disappeared because they couldn't compete. And the Win Shares for the players on those teams are all tiny and essentially meaningless. But other than that handful of teams 125+ years ago, there has never been a team in MLB that was so bad the system broke down. It works for the 2001 Mariners and it works for the 1962 Mets. The Mets didn't have a .400 hitting 50 HR guy, but if they had then (1) they would have won considerably more games, and (2) that player would have gotten more or less the same number of Win Shares as Babe Ruth in his best seasons.
And to add a bit more context/color, the system breaks down completely if an entire team is bad enough. It also struggles if any team, even a good one, has a player who is ridiculously bad. It works fine with Mario Mendoza or Jim Rice, because they were just bad, not ridiculously bad. But players who are ridiculously bad do pop up from time to time. Those players do nothing, or next to nothing, to contribute to even a single win, but they play so poorly that they snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. In other words, they would have negative Win Shares. In the real world, players that bad don't generally stay on the roster long enough to have any significant effect on the other players' Win Shares, but it's possible that it's happened to a degree that matters at some point, and it's likely that it happens all the time to the degree of a win or two. But, if it happens to every team at about the same rate, then it makes no difference. Still, in any given season a player might have one less Win Share than he should because the manager kept sending out a pitcher with an 18.00 ERA too often, and if a player who is cursed with bad managers who do that throughout his career, he could end up with 10-20 fewer Win Shares than he should. I doubt the career situation has ever actually happened, but it's theoretically possible.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I almost never get involved in these debates here. I did over in Sports Talk years and years ago and a guy took it upon himself to call me a moron and a clown (in the same post, no less) and that was about the end of that. I can take it and all but ultimately, life is a little too short to put up with much of that. Having said all of that...if you've got a guy with 493 homers and 1550 RBI and a 134 OPS+ short of the Hall, you've got an awfully small Hall, indeed.
@miwlvrn said:
Someone's McGriff Leaf PSA 10 finished at $1237 last night in time with the HOF announcement. I'm curious to see if that was a peak spike or if they'll be higher over the coming week. No doubt the graded POP is going to increase a bit in the coming months. It has me tempted to rip a couple of my '86 Leaf boxes now.
Now that McGriff is in the hall, I did take a few minutes to look through a couple of the Leaf boxes that weren't sealed in shrink wrap, since there is a pack grading special this month. I have subbed tons of cards, but I've never subbed packs before. Any thoughts on sealed packs with 1986 Leaf McGriff showing on the back: better idea to sub as a sealed pack with the set's key HOF RC; or, rip and hope for high grade? I just don't know the market or relative collectibility of graded 80's packs at all. Thank you.
Edit: Seems obvious now but I hadn't thought about it: someone mentioned that being the card on the back, it would have wax stains on it if the pack were opened up.
Comments
Seems harsh. Arod and Ortiz took PED's, that's it. They didn't go on a crime spree, rape anyone, etc.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Agreed. At least this time they didn't let in 3 or 4 more players that aren't worthy.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Really?
Yeah, he's pretty darn good too
Keith Hernandez was effectively done as MLB player at age 34. He had two awful part time seasons at age 35 and 36. He should not be getting all this 'credit' for his lifetime OPS etc..or any of his percentages.
Even Hernandez's Run Expectancy was saved by retiring early. Run expectancy is part rate stat and part counting stat.
In those two awful part time years at the end Hernandez was negative 1.7 and negative 8.9 in his run expectancy. Imagine him playing 160 games in those two years and how bad it would sink.
Can you imagine what his Run Expectancy would be playing another five full time years after that??
There is definitely some unknown value of being THE 'MAN' in the lineup. We know Cal Ripken did not receive an single IBB from 1982-1985 when Eddie Murray was batting behind him. We know Murray was THE man in that lineup. But there is no way to quantify that. No way. We know it certainly made pitchers treat Ripken differently and he got to hit in the most opportune times when they were there, whereas Murray would get the bat taken out of his hands more often.
Hernandez was never that guy. He didn't have enough power to be him. McGriff, yes, he was that man in several of his lineups.
That anchor has value. How much we don't k now.
Delgado actually looks a little better!
Little shorter career better power.
Delgado is right there. 471 Run Expectancy runs. He also left the game while he could still hit.
>
Point of order, McGriff has Clark beat in CAREER offense. In peak offense and in average offense, Clark has McGriff beat. This is subjective, but based on how I weight these things, I think Clark was clearly better than McGriff. And note that Clark's last season was a great year (33 Run Expectancy); he went out as a great player. The difference between McGriff and Clark is a 40 Run Expectancy over roughly 4 seasons. That has some value, but not that much; a first baseman who puts up a Run Expectancy of 10 each season is not very good. "Average" includes everyone; average for a first baseman is surely greater than 10. Note, too, that despite his shorter career, Clark has McGriff beat in WPA.
I don't want to make too big a deal of it because McGriff was an excellent hitter, and I don't mind at all that he made the HOF. But in a hypothetical draft, knowing how each of them will hit in every future season, I'm drafting Clark, and I wouldn't hesitate to do so.
This.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Will Clark is not a HOFer. Mark Grace isn't either, but regardless of any numbers you could bring up.... he was a better player than Will Clark. Fred McGriff is a very deserving HOFer.
No, he wasn't. There is no number you could bring up that shows that he was, so I understand why you want to dismiss "numbers" as evidence, but without numbers, what have you got?
Never thought I would ‘like’ a Dallas post but he is correct about Will Clark so what the heck.
@dallasactuary what are your thoughts on Carlos Delgado in comparison to those players already mentioned, and for hall of fame consideration?
Clark's seven consecutive year peak Run Expectancy was 288.7
McGriff's seven consecutive year Run Expectancy was 293.7(and that includes the strike shortened 1994 season)
Best Seasons
Clarks vs McGriff
72.2...........50.7
57.8...........46
44.8...........43.9
42.9...........43
36.5...........42.1
35.4...........41.9
32.7...........40.9
30..............38.3
27.4...........37.4
22.7...........32
18.............21.4
14.4..........16.5
9.1.............15.8
7.3.............15.3
4.1.............7.4
Couch........5.6
Couch........2.1
Couch........-0.3
Couch.........-6.2
McGriff had the better peak over Clark.
The lion's share of Clark's peak was in one season. Can't take that away from him and he did have a better two year peak...but I never heard of a one year or two year peak as carrying a ton of weight.
McGriff wins 16-3 head to head best offensive seasons.
Clark did retire with more in the tank, but that most likely would not have given him any edge over the 7 year peak, and it also means he escaped the inevitable negative years at the very very end.
The fact that Carlos Delgado fell off the ballot after one year and a measly 3.8% of the votes is an absolute crime. I'm not saying he should definitely get in, but he deserves a serious look.
I have nothing. He has a ring. No number can quantify defense or leadership. No metric accurately accounts for April baseball in Wrigley Field or having to scoop Shawon Dunstons lasers. No number or metric accurately weights clutch-ness. I guess I'll just believe my head over numbers. Will Clark had better HR power than Mark, but that is about it.
Mark Grace better than Will Clark?
Uh.......no.
https://stathead.com/tiny/vRkeb
Comparison between Grace and Clark, with McGriff thrown in just for fun.
Grace was a MUCH better defensive 1B than Clark, but it doesn't make up for the massive gulf in OPS+. 20 points is huge. Same batting average and OBP, though Grace played in a superior offensive environment, but Clark outslugged Grace by 55 points!
WAR overrates McGriff defensively and underrates Clark. (Clark was slightly but consistently above average; McGriff was terrible.)
IMO, it's clear that none of them belongs in the HoF, and I'm not sure if Grace belongs in your Hall of Very Good. I think he's just a bit below that level, but if your HoVG includes the likes of Adrian Gonzalez, Gil Hodges, Boog Powell, and George Scott than it ought to include Grace, too.
I'd never heard "peak" referring to a seventh best season before, but I guess it's not defined so OK. The way I define "peak", Clark's was much higher than McGriff's.
But more importantly, Run Expectancy, while a fine stat for what it is, is not park/era adjusted so it makes McGriff look better and Clark a lot worse. Which is why Clark beats McGriff in WPA despite having a shorter career.
In Win Shares, Clark destroys McGriff for their top 3 seasons (i.e., their peaks), beats him for another three, then fades away slowly and McGriff edges him out for the average/non-star portions of their careers.
In one of my larger time-sucking posts several years ago I compared each player's Win Shares in their best season, 2nd best season, etc. to every other player and ranked which players were, on that basis, most similar to each other player. The way I did it, the best season gets a lot of weight, the 2nd best season gets a little less weight, and so on. How similar two players were in their 11th best seasons, I figured, was neither important nor interesting, it was similarity in the seasons that made the player worth talking about that matters.
Five most similar hitters to Will Clark: Yastrzemski, Medwick, McCovey, Gwynn, Snider
Five most similar hitters to Fred McGriff: Reggie Smith, Andre Dawson, Dwight Evans, Darrell Evans, Mark Grace
McGriff played a fair amount longer, and he was good enough in those extra years to give them some weight. But Clark was SO MUCH better than McGriff at their peaks that McGriff's longevity doesn't do it for me. Anyone else is free to take McGriff, and there's no objective standard that says they're wrong, but I don't even see them as particularly close. Don Sutton beats Sandy Koufax head-to-head in more season than Koufax beats Sutton, and has more career runs saved, too. But I don't see Sutton as close to Koufax, either.
I think he's better than McGriff, and close to Clark, so I think he deserves consideration. Delgado, though, falls into a group that I think should get HOF consideration, but the HOF itself generally doesn't. Delgado's 7,283 ABs are very, very low for a HOFer. Why the HOF wants a player to hang around playing at a less than HOF level for several years I don't know, and don't understand, but they do. Had he stuck around, even playing hurt and stinking up the place, long enough to hit 27 more HR, he'd sail in, but because he retired as he should have, he's questionable.
Really good thread guys.
I wish I knew where Dallas post is where he compared win shares if anyone knows please post it.
Sad fact is that the title of the thread was objectively true because the ballot was bifurcated between the star power (Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, Palmeiro) and the vastly worse players who actually had a chance to get in. The selection committee should be ashamed of itself. It should have known that there was no chance that Bonds, Clemens, or Schilling would get fair consideration of what they did on the field (and many of us are perfectly fine with that; others outraged) and put players who are legitimately overlooked and might have been given a fair shake.
I'm not sure if Dwight Evans, Grich, and Whitaker are quite in the proper era, but even though far worse players than the above, their consideration wouldn't have been considered a slap in the face of the BBWAA. Palmeiro might even have gone in had he not had to compete with Bonds and Clemens.
If Bonds and Clemens ever get in, it could be another 20 years or so.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Run expectancy is both park adjusted and accounts for the run scoring environment. Looking at both of those comparing in same era and same years length, they are better than Winshares.
Seven year peak is not who the best is in their seventh year, it is their best seven years ,which is an accurate measurement of a peak and takes care of the longevity factor that muddles things. It is more valuable than a three year peak.
As it stands, McGriff beats Clark in both OPS+ and RE24(base out states) in their best seven years. It accounts for parks and era. It was the exact same era anyway, so that shouldn't even matter here.
If you don't like best seven years, then McGriff beats Clark in best five year peak too. Best six years too. Best eight year peak, nine year peak, 10 year peak, 11 year peak too etc.
Clark is going to win best three year peak based on basically just one incredible season.
We'll have to agree to disagree about what "peak" means.
Regarding RE24, I misspoke when I said it wasn't park/era adjusted. What I meant was that it was not properly park/era adjusted. Yes, when McGriff got a bases empty single that was more likely to result in a run than when Clark got a bases empty single, because runs were more likely in all situations for McGriff than for Clark. So McGriff gets an advantage for playing in an easier park/era - more runs means more run expectancy for everything a hitter does. But what Clark did in his relatively run scarce environment, while it may have produced fewer runs, produced more wins.
In any event, even focusing on RE24, Clark produced .055 expected runs per PA and McGriff produced .049 expected runs per plate appearance. Clark produced more expected runs each time he came up, and in a relatively run scarce environment. Clark was, by a fairly significant margin, a better run producer than McGriff, and he helped his team win more games than McGriff. WPA, and Win Shares, show that.
McGriff played longer, and nobody can take that away from him. Any argument that McGriff was better than Clark begins, and ends, on that point.
Not true, Clark only did it better per plate appearance because he didn't suffer any old man years. As pointed out, in their five, six, and seven year peaks, McGriff was better than Clark in both OPS+ and RE24, both when combined, are far more telling than Winshares.
Also not true on what you said about RE24 Overvaluing McGriff's RE24 runs. That scenario you laid out isnt' accurate, as it accounts for the ballpark run scoring environment already. However, the lineup could have an impact. Batting in the middle of the big Red Machine is going to give a hitter more juicy opportunities to elevate that stat(as long as you are an above average hitter). I haven't examined their lineups to see if that matter, and off the top of my head I don't think either had a big advantage there.
OPS is counting the exact value of McGriff and Clark's events. They treat every double equally. McGriff bests Clark in their peaks..
Best five year OPS was .899 for Clark
Best five year OPS was .924 for McGriff.
McGriff was better.
Ballpark factor is not in OPS, but when added, McGriff is still better in their five year peaks, six year peaks, and seven year peaks in OPS+(which includes ballpark and treats every BB,1B,2B,3B, HR, and Out made as pure equals to each other).
Best five year OPS+ was 153 for Will Clark
Best five year OPS+ was 157 for Fred McGriff.
Same era. Same length of time. Mc Griff was better.
Longevity will begin to muddle the rate stat because one played while one was on the couch.....hence whey any five to seven year peak is the most telling of who was better because it eliminates the longevity factor AND it gives a big enough sample size to get an accurate reading(and without having one career season muddle things).
OPS and OPS+ already nails the victory for McGriff since it is the same era and years legnth. RE24 adds more context to it with men on base hitting and McGriff wins that too.
McGriff had a better five year peak, six year peak, and seven year peak in OPS, OPS+ and RE24...that's pretty much all you need when comparing two similar amounts of time and within the same era.
As pertaining to the era, OPS+ can be misleading too(as can Winshares per the era), but in this situation of McGriff and Clark they are almost the exact same stretch of years, being off by just one year. No stat has accounted for the era adjustment properly yet. None. Era adjustments are all estimates, some better than others.
In the end, McGriff had the better career total, and the better five year peak, six year peak, seven year peak, eight year peak, nine year peak, and ten year peak. Any other peak after that is the start of the career portion.
Man you guys are nerds.
If this is what it’s come to,
let’s just go back to ba, hr and rbi
LMAO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Mcgriff wins that too(2 of 3).
I was actually going to add that McGriff wins the back of the baseball card stats too. But the point was that he wins the more precise stats in their peaks.
There is some merit to the traditional counting stats. It is a much smaller piece of the puzzle but it is a piece.
Some of the discussion goes over my head too. I just did not study enough of these new metrics yet to comment. I am also not one to put too much stock in BA, HR and RBIs either as I believe OPS+ is a much more comprehensive metric for that.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
I like David Cone. What did you find out? He may very well be on the ballot next time the ERA committee meets and will have an opportunity to be voted in.
When I saw the names of the committee era for this cycle, seeing that Maddux was on there, I thought that McGriff would have a good chance. It was a unanimous decision, though so it seems there was not a whole lot of convincing needed. It was notable that the top votes went to players who were very far removed from any PED controversy.
I don't know if those finishing in the top three behind McGriff will be on the ballot next year as the selection committee will choose another eight from scratch to be considered by the 16 member era committee.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
OPS does the job. It hits the nail on the head. It is very concrete.
The + really helps to put the run scoring environment into context so you know that the live ball era of 1999 isn't the same as as recent as 1988.
The + helps the era too, but I am becoming more and more convinced that it will never be possible to accurately compare someone from 1933 to someone from 2018.
Ballpark effects in the + have some wiggle room. These are not set in stone. There is some unknown there.
OPS does not accurately measure two careers of different lengths. It also does not accurately account for platoon(Ken Phelps factor). NO RATE STAT DOES...not even batting average.
These are good numbers. RBI not as much as the other two.
A simpler (better?) way is the 3,4,5.
If a hitter hits .300 has an OBP of .400 and a SLG of .500, he's great.
You can even throw out OBP as long as you get the .3 and .5.
No, what I laid out was accurate. RE24 is "ballpark adjusting", but in a way that is the opposite of how it needs to do it in order to compare two hitters. To use an extreme made-up example, imagine that batter 1 plays in a park where an average of 2 runs is scored by each team, and batter 2 plays in a park where the average team scores 4 runs. The run expectancy for any given walk, hit, etc. is going to be half as much for player 1 as it is for player 2. And yes, lineups affect it, too. If player 2 has more runners on base in front of him, then his hits have a higher run expectancy. And if one batter plays in an easier park, he will have more runners on base, hence a higher run expectancy.
When RE24 "ballpark adjusts" it is explicitly constructing a table for each ballpark. In one ballpark a single might be worth 0.2 runs, and in another ballpark it might be worth 0.4 runs. Get a single in the first ballpark, you get 0.2 RE24; get one in the second ballpark, you get 0.4 RE24. That's a "ballpark adjustment" for sure, but it magnifies the ballpark problem rather than solves it (as the "+" in OPS+ attempts to do). Clark had his peak in a very run scarce ballpark, and RE24 penalizes him for that. That's just a fact.
No matter how you measure it, Clark was better than McGriff, and that's leaving aside McGriff's prolific DPs and complete lack of fielding ability, even at first base. Where McGriff wins is on length of career, and the argument that he was better than Clark begins, and ends, on that point. If that matters more to you than it does to me, then McGriff wins.
Mark Grace had the highest number of hits in a decade and other than Pete Rose every other player that has done that is in the Hall.
Join the Rookie stars on top PSA registry today:
1980-1989 Cello Packs - Rookies
Ah, the Jack Morris argument. Since you bring it up, would you care to name the other players?
And yet he reached 190 hits only once in that decade. Is that supposed to be impressive?
It’s a decent list:
Derek Jeter
Mark Grace
Robin Yount
Pete Rose
Roberto Clemente
Richie Ashburn
Lou Boudreau
Paul Waner
Rogers Hornsby
Join the Rookie stars on top PSA registry today:
1980-1989 Cello Packs - Rookies
That list looks oddly similar to a "most at bats" list, and oddly dissimilar to a "best hitters" list.
Pete Rose was the only one of those to lead there decade in ABs. At least those numbers are easily accessible and have clear meaning... and unlike most modern "metric" stats, they are unflawwable numbers. Win Shares is inherently biased toward players on better teams. Good for determining a potential MVP for a given year... but not good for comparing players individual abilities across a career. WAR does a disservice to a a whole era of players, like Mark Grace, because for a 20+ year period, replacement value was artificially inflated due to PEDs... in turn devaluing any of the clean players doing right.
And just for the record, I'm not arguing Mark Grace is a HOFer... he enjoyed the nightlife way more than chasing 3000 hits, which was his one shot at the Hall. But he was a better player than Will Clark. Any slight edge offensively only came from having homerun power in a better lineup... he made up tenfold in defense and leadership.
Hit totals are included in all the advanced metrics, and of those hits, singles, doubles, triples, and home runs are all given their proper weight, as opposed to just giving them the exact same value by counting them all as 'hits'.
Of course, base on balls, and outs made, which are often ignored by a lot of fans, although ironically they aren't ignored when their home team pitcher is giving up walks and not recording outs, but they are often ignored and always mis-valued by most fans. Those are also included in the advanced metric.
The PED debate is a completely different debate.
As for the hits, keep in mind that Omar Vizquel has more career hits than both Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. That is what happens when you laser focus on just one tiny component of an entire masterpiece.
WAR has its problems, and I always point them out, but it is by far more telling than any single isolated stat like hit totals.
Grace was an excellent player, and ironically again, it is the advanced measurements that gives him his proper due, because he is usually discounted by the typical fan because he did not hit home runs. Thankfully the advanced metrics gives him his proper value for his base on balls and being a tough out, otherwise people would just assume he was a liability due to having little power out of a first baseman in a power era.
I don't know. I see 18 points in OPS+ as huge. And if that one is too scary, .055 in raw OPS. Grace was a much better defender, Clark better on the basepaths. I don't know much about Clark's leadership, but he had a huge offensive edge.
It is inherent to Win Shares that good teams will win more games than bad teams. If that assumption rocks your world, then we're probably not going to get very far here. But if you accept that assumption, then there's the really bold assumption that the players (cumulatively) on good teams are better than the players (cumulatively) on bad teams. If you're still with me, then all that's left is the assumption that teams that score more runs than they allow will win. Those are the three assumptions (or, more accurately, observations) that underlie the Win Shares system.
Imagine that you're Tony Perez on one of the best teams ever. Your statement seems to imply that Perez will get more Win Shares than he deserves (from a neutral system). But Perez has to wait his turn while Joe Morgan, Pete Rose, George Foster, Ken Griffey, Dave Concepcion, Johnny Bench, Cesar Geronimo, and Rawly Eastwick get their Win Shares. There's poor Tony with his 57 extra base hits and 91 RBIs watching all the Win Shares get handed out before he gets his paltry 16. Meanwhile Jimmy Wynn, on a very bad Braves team, with 37 extra base hits and 66 RBI, got 18 Win Shares.
So maybe Win Shares favors players on bad teams? No, it doesn't. I could construct 100 examples where good not great players like Perez and Wynn in 1976 get about the same Win Shares, where two bad players on a good team and a bad team get about the same Win Shares, and two great players on a good team and a bad team get about the same Win Shares.
The way to think about is that better teams will win more games, and the team will therefore have more Win Shares. But that team has a lot of good players with a claim on those Win Shares. A bad team won't have as many Win Shares, but if there's a really good player on that team (Carlton on the 1972 Phillies, for example), he'll get a very high share of the smaller pot of Win Shares. It works out the same for any given player whether he's on a good team or a bad team.
The only bias I'm aware of in Win Shares is one that favors closers, but that bias has no effect at all on the Win Shares earned by non-pitchers, it just cheats the other pitchers.
Great explanation!
I agree if Tony Perez is in the Hall of Fame then Mark Grace should be too.
Join the Rookie stars on top PSA registry today:
1980-1989 Cello Packs - Rookies
Nothing new, but I guess... still doesn't deny the bias exists and just tries to "assume" it away. Also never addresses the root meaning of the stat... which is determining a players value to their team, within a season. The calculation is based on a finite number... the number of wins in a season. To remove it from that context does a disservice to the the stat. It's a great metric as long as you stick with what it is trying to measure.
Since we're talking hypotheticals (Tony Perez reference)... how many win shares does a player get for going 4-for-4, hitting for the cycle with 3 runs scored and 5 RBI in a 7-8 loss the bullpen blew? What would a player's win share total be if he hit .400 with 50 dingers in a season, but his team couldn't muster up a single win?
Um, this is awkward. Yes, I did deny that the bias exists, and was jokingly referring to "assumptions" that were so blindingly obvious that they are in fact merely "observations". So it is what your own eyes and common sense tell you that explains away the bias, not any "assumptions".
And the point of every baseball game is to win. If what a player does advances that cause, then he gets Win Shares for his efforts. If what he does hurts the cause, then he does not. Ultimately, the purpose of each and every stat is to quantify a player's contribution toward winning games. Any stat removed from that context is useless. That Win Shares are so deeply ingrained in that context is why they do such a good job identifying great players/seasons.
This isn't how Win Shares work - accruing Win Shares game by game or at bat by at bat - so there is no answer to your question. I will say that Tony's WIn Shares at the end of the season will not be affected, or rather will be affected to a degree that would go unnoticed, regardless what the the bullpen did. If the bullpen is so horrible that they blow every game, then see below.
He would have 0 Win Shares. And James even acknowledges that his system, likewise any system, breaks down if there is a team just unimaginably horrible. He cites some 19th Century teams that appeared for one season - or sometimes not even an entire season - and then disappeared because they couldn't compete. And the Win Shares for the players on those teams are all tiny and essentially meaningless. But other than that handful of teams 125+ years ago, there has never been a team in MLB that was so bad the system broke down. It works for the 2001 Mariners and it works for the 1962 Mets. The Mets didn't have a .400 hitting 50 HR guy, but if they had then (1) they would have won considerably more games, and (2) that player would have gotten more or less the same number of Win Shares as Babe Ruth in his best seasons.
And to add a bit more context/color, the system breaks down completely if an entire team is bad enough. It also struggles if any team, even a good one, has a player who is ridiculously bad. It works fine with Mario Mendoza or Jim Rice, because they were just bad, not ridiculously bad. But players who are ridiculously bad do pop up from time to time. Those players do nothing, or next to nothing, to contribute to even a single win, but they play so poorly that they snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. In other words, they would have negative Win Shares. In the real world, players that bad don't generally stay on the roster long enough to have any significant effect on the other players' Win Shares, but it's possible that it's happened to a degree that matters at some point, and it's likely that it happens all the time to the degree of a win or two. But, if it happens to every team at about the same rate, then it makes no difference. Still, in any given season a player might have one less Win Share than he should because the manager kept sending out a pitcher with an 18.00 ERA too often, and if a player who is cursed with bad managers who do that throughout his career, he could end up with 10-20 fewer Win Shares than he should. I doubt the career situation has ever actually happened, but it's theoretically possible.
I almost never get involved in these debates here. I did over in Sports Talk years and years ago and a guy took it upon himself to call me a moron and a clown (in the same post, no less) and that was about the end of that. I can take it and all but ultimately, life is a little too short to put up with much of that. Having said all of that...if you've got a guy with 493 homers and 1550 RBI and a 134 OPS+ short of the Hall, you've got an awfully small Hall, indeed.
Now that McGriff is in the hall, I did take a few minutes to look through a couple of the Leaf boxes that weren't sealed in shrink wrap, since there is a pack grading special this month. I have subbed tons of cards, but I've never subbed packs before. Any thoughts on sealed packs with 1986 Leaf McGriff showing on the back: better idea to sub as a sealed pack with the set's key HOF RC; or, rip and hope for high grade? I just don't know the market or relative collectibility of graded 80's packs at all. Thank you.
Edit: Seems obvious now but I hadn't thought about it: someone mentioned that being the card on the back, it would have wax stains on it if the pack were opened up.