Baseball measurement, what do these guys have in common. Not a silly post :)
Hoopster
Posts: 1,169
in Sports Talk
The following players all have amassed a very nice OPS+ for their career. SOme are higher than current HOFers from the same era, while others are right there. All of these players are corner position players, and defense is not the reason for their value. They are basically 'hitters'.
Reggie Smith 137
Pedro Guerrero 137
Jack Clark 137
Will Clark 137
Greg luzinski 130
Fred Lynn 129
Keith Hernandez 128
Jim Rice 128
Kent Hrbek 128
Alvin Davis 127
Don Mattingly 127
Bill Madlock 123
Cecil Cooper 121
Here are some HoF hitters from their era, and their career OPS+...
George Brett 135
Tony Gwynn 132
Rod Carew 131
Wade Boggs 130
Dave Winfield 130
Eddie Murray 129
Carl Yastrzemski 129
So what is the difference between the top group, and the bottom group(aside from being HOFers)?
The difference is the length of careers. The top group were all basically done by age 34-36, and many were part time players in those final years as well. They all finished with about 6,000-8,000 at bats.
The bottom group all played until near age 40 or higher. Some were full time players until the very end, others somewhat. They finished with around 9,000-11,000 at bats. Some a little more.
So why does the OPS+ number show both groups as being as good as each other?
They show it as so because the bottom group played past age 35, and while they were not able to play as well as they did while in their prime, they were good enough to play and start for MLB, and even play about average or better.
When using a rate stat to measure a career, it can be very misleading. I don't think anybody would suggest that Ken Phelps is as good as any one of those playres above, but his OPS+ is 132. HE didn't play long, and he only played vs. righties. So his actual contribution or value is not in line with what his OPS+ says.
What was the OPS+ of some of the Hall of Famers through appx 8,000 at bats of their careers? Here is an example...
Murray 141 OPS+ for the first appx 8,000 at bats.
Keep in mind that 8,000 at bats are more than most of the guys up on the NOn HOF list. When you look at it like this, you can start to see the actual value of the players, and the rate stat comes into more focus.
What do the following guys have in common with the Non Hall fame group above?
Al Rosen(Mr. Mint)
Levi Bleam
Winpitcher(CU boards)
Ben Affleck
Matt Damon
All five of those guys contributed about as much as the non Hall of fame group after they hit age 35 as well! In a sense, these guys were just as good MLB players as that group once they past their mid 30's. When you use OPS+ as a measurement, that is what it is saying.
At age 35, Greg Luzinski did just as much as MLB player as did Levi Bleam and Mr. Mint. Mr. Mint had the same value as Greg Luzinksi.
At age 35-41, Eddie Murray had an OPS+ of appx 103, which is better than a league average hitter. Dave Winfield also had an above average OPS+(though I didn't calculate his).
When you consider all of this, this is what you come up with....
Eddie Murray first 8,000 at bats OPS+ of 141
Greg Luzinksi first 6,500 at bats OPS+ of 130
Murray beats him handily there, and he also had 1,500 more at bats of that higher OPS+ as well.
Murray's next 3,000 at bats OPS+ 103
Greg Luzinski's...didn't play. OPS+ equal to that of LEvi Bleam, Mr. Mint, Matt Damon, and Winpitcher.
Their career OPS+ suggest that Luzinski and Murray are about equal, but they are not very close to equal.
Murray had a better prime(and over more at bats).
Murray's extended career was equal to that of a Pete O'Brien.
In totality, Murray did what Luzinksi produced in his prime, and did it better and over 1,500 more at bats. He then went on to produce what Pete O'briens did as well.
The real value is,
Eddie Murray + Pete O'brien
...................vs.....................
Greg Luzinski + Levi Bleam and Mr. Mint.
A simpler and MORE EXACT way to look at it is looking at Batter Runs. That is a combination rate stat and counting stat. I will post the situational batter runs as that accounts for Men on base hitting.
Murray 509
Luzinkski 273
These too are not without their problems, as a player contriubting just under league average is given NEGATIVE credit in value. That really should not be the case, because if a guy is good enough to start, then he is most likely better than a replacement, otherwise they are also getting the same credit as Levi Bleam and Al Rosen. Murray had some negative seasons at the end of his career that brought his total down some.
Reggie Smith 137
Pedro Guerrero 137
Jack Clark 137
Will Clark 137
Greg luzinski 130
Fred Lynn 129
Keith Hernandez 128
Jim Rice 128
Kent Hrbek 128
Alvin Davis 127
Don Mattingly 127
Bill Madlock 123
Cecil Cooper 121
Here are some HoF hitters from their era, and their career OPS+...
George Brett 135
Tony Gwynn 132
Rod Carew 131
Wade Boggs 130
Dave Winfield 130
Eddie Murray 129
Carl Yastrzemski 129
So what is the difference between the top group, and the bottom group(aside from being HOFers)?
The difference is the length of careers. The top group were all basically done by age 34-36, and many were part time players in those final years as well. They all finished with about 6,000-8,000 at bats.
The bottom group all played until near age 40 or higher. Some were full time players until the very end, others somewhat. They finished with around 9,000-11,000 at bats. Some a little more.
So why does the OPS+ number show both groups as being as good as each other?
They show it as so because the bottom group played past age 35, and while they were not able to play as well as they did while in their prime, they were good enough to play and start for MLB, and even play about average or better.
When using a rate stat to measure a career, it can be very misleading. I don't think anybody would suggest that Ken Phelps is as good as any one of those playres above, but his OPS+ is 132. HE didn't play long, and he only played vs. righties. So his actual contribution or value is not in line with what his OPS+ says.
What was the OPS+ of some of the Hall of Famers through appx 8,000 at bats of their careers? Here is an example...
Murray 141 OPS+ for the first appx 8,000 at bats.
Keep in mind that 8,000 at bats are more than most of the guys up on the NOn HOF list. When you look at it like this, you can start to see the actual value of the players, and the rate stat comes into more focus.
What do the following guys have in common with the Non Hall fame group above?
Al Rosen(Mr. Mint)
Levi Bleam
Winpitcher(CU boards)
Ben Affleck
Matt Damon
All five of those guys contributed about as much as the non Hall of fame group after they hit age 35 as well! In a sense, these guys were just as good MLB players as that group once they past their mid 30's. When you use OPS+ as a measurement, that is what it is saying.
At age 35, Greg Luzinski did just as much as MLB player as did Levi Bleam and Mr. Mint. Mr. Mint had the same value as Greg Luzinksi.
At age 35-41, Eddie Murray had an OPS+ of appx 103, which is better than a league average hitter. Dave Winfield also had an above average OPS+(though I didn't calculate his).
When you consider all of this, this is what you come up with....
Eddie Murray first 8,000 at bats OPS+ of 141
Greg Luzinksi first 6,500 at bats OPS+ of 130
Murray beats him handily there, and he also had 1,500 more at bats of that higher OPS+ as well.
Murray's next 3,000 at bats OPS+ 103
Greg Luzinski's...didn't play. OPS+ equal to that of LEvi Bleam, Mr. Mint, Matt Damon, and Winpitcher.
Their career OPS+ suggest that Luzinski and Murray are about equal, but they are not very close to equal.
Murray had a better prime(and over more at bats).
Murray's extended career was equal to that of a Pete O'Brien.
In totality, Murray did what Luzinksi produced in his prime, and did it better and over 1,500 more at bats. He then went on to produce what Pete O'briens did as well.
The real value is,
Eddie Murray + Pete O'brien
...................vs.....................
Greg Luzinski + Levi Bleam and Mr. Mint.
A simpler and MORE EXACT way to look at it is looking at Batter Runs. That is a combination rate stat and counting stat. I will post the situational batter runs as that accounts for Men on base hitting.
Murray 509
Luzinkski 273
These too are not without their problems, as a player contriubting just under league average is given NEGATIVE credit in value. That really should not be the case, because if a guy is good enough to start, then he is most likely better than a replacement, otherwise they are also getting the same credit as Levi Bleam and Al Rosen. Murray had some negative seasons at the end of his career that brought his total down some.
0
Comments
<< <i>Thank God I didn't read this post, but I felt I had to say, Shut It Down Hoopster.
OK, I have to ask. Why?
Pardon me for making an assumption, and I'll eat the inanimate object of your choice if I'm wrong, but hoopster just posted a great deal of information of which you were completely unaware. And that information was (1) interesting to people who care about the HOF, (2) relevant to the coming HOF election, and (3) presented without any of the "holier-than-thou" attitude that others have accused hoopster of displaying and which, ironically, characterizes your post. How about we shut down the "Shut It Down Hoopster" stuff?
hoopster, I'd also say that in selecting your sample to make the point you're making you also pretty much found the "HOF line" for shorter-career players with little defensive value - it appears to be an OPS+ of 137. All four of the players at exactly 137 are, IMO, right on the line for the HOF; if they had one more good year, or some other skill not captured by OPS+ I would say they definitely belonged - and if any of them did make the HOF it wouldn't bother me much at all.
Boog Powell also fits right into that group; his OPS+ is a few points lower but I'd say he's right on the line. Then there's Frank Howard, who also has the short career and the low defensive value - but an OPS+ of 142. I don't know why he's not in the HOF, but I'm pretty sure playing for the Senators in RFK has a lot to do with it. He has to be the only player with three seaons of OPS+ of 170 or more not in the HOF; he may be the only one with two. I'd say he definitely belongs.
Mike
I believe Bill James has stated that on-base percentage PLUS slugging percentage is not the most or close to the most reliable indicator of runs created. He stated that OBP is more important to creating runs than SLG and for a more reliable indicator the numbers should be MULTIPLIED together not added.
A player with a .350 OBP and a .450 SLG will create less runs than a player with a .400 OBP and a .400 SLG but both are valued equally.
The statistic isn't perfect, but it captures more than any of the standard stats and is a very good proxy for hitting ability. It has been said that it "double counts" some things - and it does - but that really isn't a problem. For example, a single gets counted twice in OBP and in SA, but a walk does not - it only gets counted in OBP. A HR gets counted once in OBP and four times in SA, and so on. Offensive events thus get weighted in a reasonable way, and ultimately the stat you end up with is comparing players on the same basis.
OPS+ does NOT consider situational hitting (how a batter does with runners on base, etc.), stolen bases, or GIDP. For most players, these omissions don't matter all that much, but for some they make a huge difference. Rickey Henderson and Tim Raines, for example, were a whole lot better than their OPS+ stats indicate; which is probably obvious. Likewise, players with the worst GIDP stats are not as good as their OPS+ would otherwise indicate, and players who are much better or much worse in certain situations could also have a misleading OPS+.
Aro is correct in that OPS is the least accurate of them, but it is also the easiest to find and compute...and it is close enough that it does the job for the most part.
Dallas,
If we added the situational batter runs(which is limited due to it being compiled only for the years 1960-2004...can be used for later but takes more computation), look how those guys look.
Situational batter runs account for the GIDP, the men on base hitting. It takes into account the great benefit a guy gives his team by hitting a double with the bases loaded. However, it also takes into account hitting into an inning ending double play with the bases loaded! It sees how many runners were moved up with outs, and gives credit. It takes into account basically all the stuff we wondered as fans 25 years ago.
W. Clark 457
J. Clark 415
K. Hernandez 382
D. Parker 365
R. Smith 362
P. Guerrero 320
Luzinski 273
Lynn 250
Hrbek 244
Madlock 237
Mattingly 228
Cooper 224
Rice 190
A. Davis 185
Looking how the batters fared in each of the 24 base/out situations.(All possible combinations of runners on base and number of outs). The list changes a little. But Will Clark and Jack Clark stay atop, and widen their lead considerably.
But there were three guys, Hernandez, Rice, and Davis that have seperated. They all had basically the same OPS+, yet Hernandez climbed higher with situational batter runs. Why? It is due primarily to accounting for all the situations and how they fared in each of the 24 base/out situations...and this is more accurate than OPS+. But it is the Men on hitting accounting for most.
But, this leads to another question, and that is the number of at bats. Clearly, OPS+ and Situational batter runs have Jim Rice and Alvin Davis virtually equal. Jim Rice is a hot button topic, I know, but hot buttons need to be put aside.
I will say that ALvin Davis and Jim RIce are NOT equal, despite what OPS+ and situational Batter runs say! Why?
Much like the guys with shorter careers are not equal to the guys with longer careers, Davis represents a guy with an exceptionally short career. He only had 4,200 at bats, compared to 8,200 for Rice. Davis also sat for lefties at times.
If you give Rice his due credit for playing everyday, and you measure them vs. what a league replacement level player would bring, then you would get this as the following(I did a quick estimation rather than hard figure). I used a replacement level player of -10 as opposed to zero for league average.
RIce Situational Batter Runs vs. replacement........320 Situational batter runs over replacment player
Davis Situational Batter Runs vs. Replacement.....245 Situational batter runs over replacement player
The figure of -10 is one of those things that is a guess and is not 100% scientific. It could be -15. If it is set lower, than Rice's value rises more over Davis because he is playing so often instead of a bad player. It is similar to pitchers with IP. The more a guy pitches Innings better than a scrub, the more value he has for his team.
Some analysts only view it vs. league average, while others look for a total value as opposed to measuring vs. league average(like Winshares)
Dallas, what does the WinShares state for those guys?
Davis - Career 285 Top 3 seasons 22, 22, 21 Top 5 total 91 Average per 162 18.95
Rice - Career 282 Top 3 seasons 36, 28, 28 Top 5 total 127 Average per 162 21.86
Total Winshares says the same thing as OPS+, and the Situational Batter Runs.
The one that is barking something different is if you used situational batter runs as measured vs a league replacement player, as opposed to a league average player.
I think vs. league replacement needs a place in there, because it is giving credit to all the at bats that players were able to go up there and provide value.
However, it is very easy to establish what average is in order to measure against, but it isn't quite so easy establishing what a replacement player is.
Basically, the more you play above replacement level, the more value you get. The lower the replacement level goes, the greater value that lies within the player that plays everyday and for a long time.
Davis did excellent in his short career, but I don't like viewing him as an equal to Rice because Davis sat vs. lefties, and he played half the time. According to the situational batter runs vs. replacement it accounts for this...but the others don't seem to do so. The others don't seem to account for the 'stat saving'.
RIce Situational Batter Runs vs. replacement........320 Situational batter runs over replacment player
Davis Situational Batter Runs vs. Replacement.....245 Situational batter runs over replacement player
Rice 190 Situational batter runs vs AVERAGE player
A. Davis 185 Situational batter runs vs AVERAGE player
Rice 128 OPS+
Davis 127 OPS+
What do you guys think?
1 (1) W. Clark 457 305 22
2 (2) J. Clark 415 291 21
3 (4) Hernandez 382 277 19
4 (3) Parker 365 284 17
5 (5) R. Smith 362 273 20
6 (10 Guerrero 320 221 22
7 (8) Luzinski 273 230 18
8 (9) Lynn 250 227 17
9(13) Hrbek 244 200 17
10 (12) Madlock 237 203 17
11 (7) Mattingly 228 234 18
12 (11) Cooper 224 221 17
13 (6) Rice 190 245 16
14 (14) A. Davis 185 141 17
All in all, the rankings are pretty close. The biggest exceptions are Rice and Guerrero. I know why WS ranks Rice higher than SBR - Rice played a realtively long career for this group and WS gives more relative value for being average than does SBR. Both Rice and Guerrero's ranking in the WS system gets some added context by the per PA stats - Rice falls to the bottom and Guerrero rises to the top.
Some other players in the same class (less than 9,000 PA and relatively little defensive value) with their WS and WS/600:
Dick Allen: 311, 26
Norm Cash: 280, 21
Frank Howard: 273, 22
Ken Singleton: 272, 19
Bobby Bonds: 260, 19
Jimmy Wynn: 259, 19
Boog Powell: 256, 20
Bobby Murcer: 235, 18
Roy White: 229, 18
Tony Oliva: 218, 19
Bob Watson: 215, 19
Gene Tenace: 189, 21
There is no objective argument for keeping Allen out of the HOF, although the subjective arguments are compelling. Cash belongs in the HOF, I think, but there is an objective argument due to the substantial amount of platooning he did, as also Boog Powell to a slightly lesser degree.
But Frank Howard? It makes no difference what system you use, they all show that Howard got screwed. 20+ WS per 600 PA is great, and Howard's career was more than long enough to eliminate that as an excuse.
edit to add: aro, the WS data you show are for Chili Davis, not Alvin Davis.
Will Clark looks to be the guy most deserving as the best player in that group. Lets say that Will Clark played five more full years at the end of his career...and he played at a level that was below average or appx at the level of a typical replacement player.
The Situational batter runs would take away appx 50-60 from his total bringing it down to 400. So over a full career, he would not match up to the likes of Murray/Winfield/Brett.
His OPS+ would also drop below the HOF level, probably to 124.
With his WinShares sitting currently at 305, am I correct to say that with five more full years of well below average play, that his WinShares would basically just not move?
Which means simply hanging on for five more years still does not put him in the class of the other slugging HOFers from that era, because he would still be behind those guys in those key measurements, correct?
Pete Rose is considered the textbook hanger oner, but his SItuational batter runs only dropped to 487 with his old man years. What were his WinShares?
In general, 10 WS marks a full time but not very good season, 15 is a good season, 20 is a very good season, 25 is a great season, and 30+ usually gets you into MVP contention. These figures include defense. For a career average, you'd have to drop those a notch or two - where 25+ was a HOF lock, 20-25 for HOF contention, 15-20 for a great but not HOF player, and 10-15 for the great majority of full career players. And, of course, you'd have to adjust that for the old man problem so hanging around didn't mean you lost ground to players who didn't.
Some names that are sometimes mentioned as borderline HOFers and whose defense doesn't add much to their case:
Tony Perez: 300 career WS and an average (per 600 PA's) of 17. Ignore his post-35 years and he has 235 and 18. Very borderline indeed. Ususally, if a player has numbers this weak (for a HOFer) there is "something else" - a record of some kind, multiple Gold Gloves, 3,000 hits, 500 HR, etc. Perez's "something else" must be his World Series titles, but I think that's a crock when there are already three other players in the HOF from those same teams. I'm not too upset about Perez being in the HOF, but he truly is at the very bottom of those I think are deserving.
Eddie Murray: I know he's not borderline, but someone implied that he was. He has 400 career WS, 19 average. Eliminate his post-35 years and he's 338, 21. Those are rock solid HOF numbers.
Orlando Cepeda: 282 and 19 total, and he has no old man years. I don't want to imply that there is some sort of bright line that says an average of 20 is HOF worthy and 19 is not - I'll just say that Cepeda, like Perez, is right on the line. Again, there is no obvious "something else"; MOST HOF candidates have an MVP and a World Series to their credit, and it's not clear what else Cepeda has.
Billy Williams: 329 and 19 total, 297 and 20 pre-36. A little borderline, if you want the HOF to be a step higher than it really is, but pretty solid for the way it is.
Lou Brock: 299 and 16 total, 254 and 17 pre-36. Now that's probably below any borderline, but Brock has "something else" in spades - 3,000 hits, career and season SB records, and one of the best post-season records in history. I think Brock is a slam-dunk HOFer, but on offense alone he's only a step above Rice and a step below Reggie Smith and on that basis alone couldn't be justified.
Gil Hodges: not a HOFer, but frequently mentioned as deserving. His career totals are 228 and 17, or 220 and 18 after the old man years are eliminated. That's only borderline if you are in favor of lowering the existing border - Cepeda and Perez were clearly better, and even Brock was better without even considering his "something else". Hodges has numbers indistinguishable from Luzinski or Lynn - great players but no way were they HOFers. Like so many others, the "something else" that Hodges brings to the table is that he played for a great team. As I've already said, I think that argument is a crock. He's got a managerial record with a single bright spot in nine seasons, but that seems like a stretch, too.
edited to clarify: other than the references to Rose and Maxvill, all of the WS numbers here are for offense only. It doesn't matter much for these specific comparisons, but just in case I have cause to mention their total Win Shares in a future post, I didn't want this to be a source of confusion.
Steve
I think the 'something else' was/is the fact that he had all those 90+ Rbi seasons and back in the day
that was mentioned alot. NOT saying it was right. Just saying what I remember.
Also, another fact was after he left the Big Red Machine won no more.
Being PR prolly helped too.
Steve
<< <i>I think the 'something else' was/is the fact that he had all those 90+ Rbi seasons and back in the day
that was mentioned alot. NOT saying it was right. Just saying what I remember.
Also, another fact was after he left the Big Red Machine won no more.
Being PR prolly helped too.
>>
The 90+ RBI streak is "something" and maybe that's what did it. But "90 RBI" is rarely used to measure anyone other than Perez, so I think that's probably just people who wanted to put Perez in the HOF grasping for a reason.
The Big Red Machine did fall apart after Perez left, but it had little if anything to do with Perez. Driessen had a better season in 1977 than Perez had in 1976, but they got worse at most other spots and their pitching got much worse.
Being PR prolly did help and maybe it should have. Again, Perez is not on my list of problems with the HOF; I just think he defines as well as anyone else where the bottom ought to be. When the conversation turns to HOFers it can get a little cloudy since we use comparisons that might seem unflattering. But that is only when compared to the greatest players in the game - Tony Perez was a great player by any reasonable standard. The debate is just over how great you need to be to deserve to be in the HOF.
The 90+ RBI streak is "something" and maybe that's what did it. But "90 RBI" is rarely used to measure anyone other than Perez, so I think that's probably just people who wanted to put Perez in the HOF grasping for a reason.
That may be true but I remember people saying it years before he retired let alone inducted.
It was 12 or 13 straight years of 90+ RBI with a few 100+ smattered in there.
It may very well be coincidence that they did not win after he left, it is though a fact and people did speak of it.
Steve
To me Perez is a borderline at best HOF I would compare him to guys like Colavito and May.
What he has going for him, that those guys don't is longevity. 23 years in the bigs is substantial
Many people frown on longevity but to me that can make or break a hall of famer.
Guys like Tommy John and Jim Kaat belong because of the longevity.
The Hall of fame was created for the Ruths and Cobbs yet somehow it has over the years
been watered down. If it was filled with just the Ruths and Cobbs of the baseball world
we would have maybe 50 players in it. As it is we have less then 150. When you consider all
the thousands of players it still is a very small family.
When Jim Rice makes it later this year................
Steve
Not even debatable that he benefited from the "real" Hall of Fame players on the Reds at that time, especially his RBI stats, and of course he is a nice, likable guy and I believe that helped him get in.
As for Colavito and May, they have 273 and 225 Win Shares compared to Perez's 346. I'm sure their batter runs are comparable. At their peaks, Colavito was closer: Perez's top 3 are 33, 32, 31; Colavito's are 33, 32, 29 and May's are 26, 24, 24. Baines has 305 total and a top 3 of 25, 24, 22.
So Perez has by far the largest career total of this group (longevity) and the best peak. Perez was a whole lot better than any of them, and the only one with any business in the HOF. Baines 305 is impressive, and Baines was a great player, but 300 Win Shares has been accomplished by a whole lot of players that ought to be ahead of Baines in the HOF line - and they accomplished it a lot faster, too. Some of the legitimate HOFers in that group are Santo, Darrell Evans and Grich. But the 300+ club also includes Willie Davis, Jose Cruz and Buddy Bell. If a player gets to 400 then I don't care how they get there - they're in; but not 300. (Everybody over 400 is in the HOF and got in quickly). Ruth and Cobb, by the way, are the only two players over 700.
Tommy John and Jim Kaat were both great pitchers but hanging on for the sake of hanging on - as opposed to hanging on because you're actually still good - is a pretty shaky HOF credential. They wouldn't be the worst pitchers in the HOF, but that line of reasoning is why the HOF keeps getting watered down. Jim Rice wouldn't be the worst HOFer either, but this thread is chock full of dozens of players who were clearly better, and once Rice is in - or once John or Kaat or Jack Morris gets in - it just opens the door wider for more players who can also claim that they are better than some HOFers.
And hoopster, if you really thought about the numbers I posted for Rose, you're probably really confused. Those last 32 Win Shares pushed Rose's career total from 515 to 547, not from 322 to 354 - due to a brain-fart, I neglected to add in his Win Shares from his last two seasons and the entire decade of the 1960's.
whoa wait a second here, are you saying that they were able to 'hang on' only because they wanted to? Not because some general manager somewhere thought
they were still able to get people out? Tommy John was no slouch the last few years and Kaat was a left handed relief specialist. No one gets to hang on simply
because they want to. They have to earn a spot on the team. At the very least they are allowed to play 1 final year only because the team has millions invested in them.
This was not the case with those two guys.
Steve
Who are the top 20 eligible players in your system not in the HOF - offense plus defense?
For Win Shares, the top 20:
Tim Raines - 387
Darrell Evans - 364
Rusty Staub - 357
Sherry Magee - 354
Lou Whitaker - 351
Dwight Evans - 346
Andre Dawson - 341
Dick Allen - 340
Bobby Grich - 329
Dave Parker - 326
Reggie Smith - 325
Ron Santo - 324
Graig Nettles - 321
Willie Davis - 321
Vada Pinson - 321
Alan Trammell - 318
Jack Clark - 316
Stan Hack - 316
Norm Cash - 315
Tommy Leach - 315
This is just a top 20 list on total Win Shares, not a "best" 20 list, and I'm just looking for the same thing from your system. I expect that some of the real long career guys will look better in Win Shares, but I'm interested to see if there are any other big differences - particularly if the infielders show up on your list, too.
<< <i>whoa wait a second here, are you saying that they were able to 'hang on' only because they wanted to? Not because some general manager somewhere thought
they were still able to get people out? Tommy John was no slouch the last few years and Kaat was a left handed relief specialist. No one gets to hang on simply
because they want to. They have to earn a spot on the team. At the very least they are allowed to play 1 final year only because the team has millions invested in them.
This was not the case with those two guys.
>>
Let me make my distinction clearer. Yes, John and Kaat had value in those "hanging-on" years - but it wasn't anywhere in the neighborhood of HOF value. I don't think that those years ought to take anything away from whatever HOF case they may have had at, say, age 37, but neither should it add much to it.
Tommy John pitched 1,222 innings after age 38; in those years he allowed 33 MORE runs than an average pitcher. Jim Kaat pitched 892 innings after age 36; in those years he allowed 36 MORE runs than an average pitcher. Kaat picked up 38 Win shares in what amounts to 4 seasons worth of full-time pitching - about 10 a season. John picked up 56 Win Shares in the equivalent of 5 to 6 full-time seasons - about 10 a season. Those figures are better than replacement level - barely - but they are worse than average. Tommy John, by the way, was worse than replacement level - he earned exactly zero Win Shares - in his final season; Jim Kaat earned 1. They probably were pitching only for contract reasons.
Being a below average pitcher has some value - using it to justify entry into the HOF, though, strikes me as just wrong. I'd like to think Jay Johnstone could still be playing and still not be talked about as a HOFer. Longevity can add to a HOF case, but it shouldn't be the primary case.
That said, Jim Kaat does have "something else", the multiple Gold Gloves, that gives him a boost. If I had to pick one to put in it would be Kaat. If I could put either one in and take Jim Hunter out or get a guarantee that Jack Morris would never get in, I'd jump on the deal. But in the real world, neither one would make my ballot.
Many stats are avaiable, all can contribute to understanding the ultimate goal in baseball, which to score a run, or to prevent a run from scoring.
HOF merit and MVP awards use no precise exact formula or combination of stats. For example, both of this seasons MVPs, did not lead their respective leagues in win shares, a Triple crown winner has not won the award, in the past. A lasting impression made in baseball, via outstanding marks or league leading seasons, may or may not be enough, to combine with longevity, for gaining Hall entry.
It is fun to discuss baseball, sometimes hard to realize there are countless ways to group and weigh various factors, sometimes hard to be understanding, and accept that strong and logical cases can be made for or against the very same player, sometimes hard for many, to be above personal references.
2drink;
Dallas, the situational batter runs doesn't contain a defensive measure. The defensive measure they use would be the standard linear weights measure of defense from Total baseball, and we both feel quite iffy on using that one(as have many analysts since its inception quite a while ago).
It does give a positional adjustment, but I am not sure that works either. It is great work that takes the play by play data and uses it in the strictest straightforward sense, but I think that is its limitations, as it starts reach a bit on doing the typical Total Baseball like positional adjustments. I can post that later on. It probably over inflates the defensive positions.
Winshares is much better overall with defense.
The only thing I would do is to compare the offensive portions of Winshares and see if they jive with the offensive portions of the Situational batter runs. If the batter runs show something better, as would be in the case of Murray or Dave Parker, then I would just adjust upwards for WinShares.
Raines 335
Staub 321
Allen 309
Magee 308
W. Clark 305
Da. Evans 295
Dw. Evans 294
Ja. Clark 291
Parker 284
Baines 282
Cash 280
Dawson 280
Hernandez 277
Howard 273
R. Smith 273
Singleton 272
Sheckard 271
Whitaker 263
Cruz 263
Oliver 259