Options
Peak Value vs. Career Value
dallasactuary
Posts: 4,119 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
In the HOF Standards thread I ranked everyone by weighting their peak value very high and their career value (when they "accumulate") very low. This produces rankings that I think are pretty good, with one or two exceptions, provided the foundation of the system - that peak value counts most of all - is accepted.
But I'm still uncomfortable that peak value really ought to mean that much, and here's why. Consider the following two (made up) players. They came up on the same day, played as teammates through their entire careers, they each batted 3rd and 4th in the order depending on the whim of the manager, one played right field and the other left field and were equally good, they were equal as base runners, and they each retired on the same day. And here's their career stats:
Player #1: 10,000 AB, 3,000 Hits, 400 2B, 100 3B, 300 HR, 1,000 BB, 1,200 Runs, 1,500 RBI, 125 OPS+, 100 SB, 30 CS.
Player #2: 10,000 AB, 3,000 Hits, 400 2B, 100 3B, 300 HR, 1,000 BB, 1,200 Runs, 1,500 RBI, 125 OPS+, 100 SB, 30 CS.
Which one was better? Which one deserves to be in the HOF?
Sounds silly at first, since they were identically the same over the course of their careers, but it's not really. While no two players have ever been identical, there are lots of players who overall compare fairly closely to another player - Jim Rice and Chili Davis, for example - but are separated mostly by how good they were at their peaks. So, because Rice was much better than Davis at their peaks, we, and HOF voters, think of Rice as the better player. But, if Rice was better at his peak, and they're roughly equal overall, that has to mean that Davis was the better player in many other seasons.
So, the question is, why does being great for 10 seasons and crappy for 10 seasons (we're not talking about Rice/Davis anymore) make a player "better" than a player who was good for 20 seasons? I'm going to go on record and say that Player #1 and Player #2, above, are equal; neither one is better than the other. If it turns out that Player #1 was MVP three times, and deserved to be, and Player #2 never was, and never deserved to be, I'm sticking with it, too. What is the argument that it matters how or in what order two players reach the same career stats?
But I'm still uncomfortable that peak value really ought to mean that much, and here's why. Consider the following two (made up) players. They came up on the same day, played as teammates through their entire careers, they each batted 3rd and 4th in the order depending on the whim of the manager, one played right field and the other left field and were equally good, they were equal as base runners, and they each retired on the same day. And here's their career stats:
Player #1: 10,000 AB, 3,000 Hits, 400 2B, 100 3B, 300 HR, 1,000 BB, 1,200 Runs, 1,500 RBI, 125 OPS+, 100 SB, 30 CS.
Player #2: 10,000 AB, 3,000 Hits, 400 2B, 100 3B, 300 HR, 1,000 BB, 1,200 Runs, 1,500 RBI, 125 OPS+, 100 SB, 30 CS.
Which one was better? Which one deserves to be in the HOF?
Sounds silly at first, since they were identically the same over the course of their careers, but it's not really. While no two players have ever been identical, there are lots of players who overall compare fairly closely to another player - Jim Rice and Chili Davis, for example - but are separated mostly by how good they were at their peaks. So, because Rice was much better than Davis at their peaks, we, and HOF voters, think of Rice as the better player. But, if Rice was better at his peak, and they're roughly equal overall, that has to mean that Davis was the better player in many other seasons.
So, the question is, why does being great for 10 seasons and crappy for 10 seasons (we're not talking about Rice/Davis anymore) make a player "better" than a player who was good for 20 seasons? I'm going to go on record and say that Player #1 and Player #2, above, are equal; neither one is better than the other. If it turns out that Player #1 was MVP three times, and deserved to be, and Player #2 never was, and never deserved to be, I'm sticking with it, too. What is the argument that it matters how or in what order two players reach the same career stats?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
0
Comments
<< <i>
Player #1: 10,000 AB, 3,000 Hits, 400 2B, 100 3B, 300 HR, 1,000 BB, 1,200 Runs, 1,500 RBI, 125 OPS+, 100 SB, 30 CS.
Player #2: 10,000 AB, 3,000 Hits, 400 2B, 100 3B, 300 HR, 1,000 BB, 1,200 Runs, 1,500 RBI, 125 OPS+, 100 SB, 30 CS.
Which one was better? Which one deserves to be in the HOF?
>>
Crazy how these two guys have the exact same stats
<< <i>My uneducated theory would be something along these lines...player A&B have identical stats after a 20 year career, player A had 5 or 7 great seasons and during those seasons he was a big reason why his team won say 2 World Series and he got MVP 4 times out of those 5-7 seasons and got World Series MVP 1 time. Player B had decent seasons but never a great season and his teams never finished better than 2nd in the division. Personally I think player A would be by all rights considered better. I think human nature comes in to play and people like myself would be quick to say player A was better.. >>
It could work out that way, but it doesn't have to. And in my example, both players were on the same team, so that makes the point somewhat moot anyway. But let's say that in Player A's MVP seasons, their team never made the postseason, and remove that from the equation. Is it still the case that Player A is better than Player B? Does having a strong peak in itself make a player better than his career stats indicate, or only if those strong seasons lead to the postseason? For HOF voting, I think you've essentially hit on it - strong seasons that lead to the postseason carry extra value that is not offset by poor seasons that cost a team a chance at the postseason (we know they made the postseason, we can't know for sure that they would have if the player hadn't tanked that year). But I guess my question is, is this right? Does it make sense to say that a player who is great one year and gets his team to the postseason, and then tanks the next year and costs his team a chance at the postseason "better" than a player who was very good, but not great, in both of those seasons? I vote "no", HOF voters appear to say "yes". What do you all say?
I'll throw out as an example Ernie Banks. Banks had a mediocre rookie year, was great for six years, more or less average for nine more years, then closed out with two crappy old man years. Over the course of his career, Banks was a very good player with an OPS+ identical to Tony Perez. And Banks never played in the postseason while Perez did many times. Banks gets some extra credit for the less than half of his career that he played shortstop, but he wasn't a great shortstop so there's a limit to how much extra credit he can get. But the perception is that Banks is an all-time great and that Perez was lucky to make the HOF. Why is that? I think it's because Perez was consistently very good, while Banks was great then average. Were Banks and Perez roughly equal players, or does Banks deserve to be thought of as much better? Why?
1)People marvel at greatness, and we always remember how great a player was. Unfortunately, there are things like injury that chip away at greatness, reducing a player's ability to play as good for as long. Looking at their peak tells you how great the player was when he was at his prime physical/mental peak.
2)There is also a real life scenario where the guy with the strong peak is of greater advantage.
If a player puts up 500 Batter Runs in his first ten years in the league, and then retires(or moves to another team), his team no longer has to pay him at the inflated rate that players get paid after their prime.
So what has happened is that the team got ten peak years out of that player, the first several of which were at a low(or league minimum) salary...and it is in this time where the team has the greatest chance to win a WS, because they are getting MVP performances for cheap, and could then spend money on other players to fill in their team's needs.
That is an astronomical benefit for a team looking to win a World Series...and these are the teams that have great chances to win World Series.
Of course, the teams that recognize this, and are better at knowing when it is time to move on with a player, will benefit more than others.
Teams that get stuck with older under-performing veterans are the teams that end up as disappointments....because those veterans get paid a lot of money.
Players that play a long time have their value, and it should not go unrecognized, but players that have elite peaks are of greater advantage for teams looking to win a World Series.
<< <i>Dallas, two things:
1)People marvel at greatness, and we always remember how great a player was. Unfortunately, there are things like injury that chip away at greatness, reducing a player's ability to play as good for as long. Looking at their peak tells you how great the player was when he was at his prime physical/mental peak.
2)There is also a real life scenario where the guy with the strong peak is of greater advantage.
If a player puts up 500 Batter Runs in his first ten years in the league, and then retires(or moves to another team), his team no longer has to pay him at the inflated rate that players get paid after their prime.
So what has happened is that the team got ten peak years out of that player, the first several of which were at a low(or league minimum) salary...and it is in this time where the team has the greatest chance to win a WS, because they are getting MVP performances for cheap, and could then spend money on other players to fill in their team's needs.
That is an astronomical benefit for a team looking to win a World Series...and these are the teams that have great chances to win World Series.
Of course, the teams that recognize this, and are better at knowing when it is time to move on with a player, will benefit more than others.
Teams that get stuck with older under-performing veterans are the teams that end up as disappointments....because those veterans get paid a lot of money.
Players that play a long time have their value, and it should not go unrecognized, but players that have elite peaks are of greater advantage for teams looking to win a World Series. >>
Skin,
How would you reconcile this assessment with a player like Yaz, who had a very long career?
Also, I would agree with your assertion that a team would benefit from a player who hit his peak at a younger age while commanding a below market salary vs the same veteran player putting up similar numbers while commanding a bigger salary, but how do we factor in the component of salary when determining who had the better career vs who was more of an asset for the team and its ability to win a World Series while playing. That component would seem to be a difficult one to effectively quantify, also, when you compare players from today's era vs players who played prior to free agency and balloooning salaries, when such a component would have little or no impact as teams effectively owned players until they retired or were traded.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>Dallas, two things:
1)People marvel at greatness, and we always remember how great a player was. Unfortunately, there are things like injury that chip away at greatness, reducing a player's ability to play as good for as long. Looking at their peak tells you how great the player was when he was at his prime physical/mental peak.
2)There is also a real life scenario where the guy with the strong peak is of greater advantage.
If a player puts up 500 Batter Runs in his first ten years in the league, and then retires(or moves to another team), his team no longer has to pay him at the inflated rate that players get paid after their prime.
So what has happened is that the team got ten peak years out of that player, the first several of which were at a low(or league minimum) salary...and it is in this time where the team has the greatest chance to win a WS, because they are getting MVP performances for cheap, and could then spend money on other players to fill in their team's needs.
That is an astronomical benefit for a team looking to win a World Series...and these are the teams that have great chances to win World Series.
Of course, the teams that recognize this, and are better at knowing when it is time to move on with a player, will benefit more than others.
Teams that get stuck with older under-performing veterans are the teams that end up as disappointments....because those veterans get paid a lot of money.
Players that play a long time have their value, and it should not go unrecognized, but players that have elite peaks are of greater advantage for teams looking to win a World Series. >>
Skin,
How would you reconcile this assessment with a player like Yaz, who had a very long career?
Also, I would agree with your assertion that a team would benefit from a player who hit his peak at a younger age while commanding a below market salary vs the same veteran player putting up similar numbers while commanding a bigger salary, but how do we factor in the component of salary when determining who had the better career vs who was more of an asset for the team and its ability to win a World Series while playing. That component would seem to be a difficult one to effectively quantify, also, when you compare players from today's era vs players who played prior to free agency and balloooning salaries, when such a component would have little or no impact as teams effectively owned players until they retired or were traded. >>
All I'm saying is that the player outlined above gives the team the better chance to win a World Series...whether or not a team or GM is actually equipped to take advantage of that is another story...but that then becomes an evaluation on the GM as opposed to the player. As in most things in basesball, it may not always work out, but you simply do what gives you the best chance. I don't think it is possible to quantify it...but the salary structure of when player's get raises, and when they become overpaid based on past performance, has held pretty true for baseball history.
I have always said that people get confused when looking at players with long careers such as Yaz or Murray, in that they take their career percentages and compare them to player with shorter careers, and they make the mistake of missing the fact that Yaz and Murray were better than guys like Rice in their primes, because they don't understand how the long career brings down the rate stats.
Grote, there really is only one way to handle the prime/longevity factors, and that is simply to make two lists. One list for best players in their primes, and one for best career value. Prime lists would actually have a few subsets within, such as 4 yr, 6 yr, 8yr....etc.
Dallasactuary tried the impossible job of merging the two lists, and that is very hard to do. I've thought about how I would personally handle a merge...but I don't think I'm ready to put it down on paper yet.
Of course, the measurements one uses are key.
By baseball history, I assume you mean post free agency or 1975 forward, with a particular emphasis on 1990 forward, when salaries really began to escalate. Prior to free agency, when owners effectively controlled salaries and careers, most players had to work second jobs in the offseason to make a living, with very few, if any, qualifying as overpaid by today's standards. Even Mickey Mantle never made more than 100K in a season, and most years, far less than that.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Mantle's structure...he got paid peanuts while producing MVP performances...and those are the types of performances that win World Series(or gives a shot at winning one). He still made little his first six years, had an increase his next six, and had his highest paid years when he wasn't at his best(he just didn't have as many of those type years). Similar structure, just less dollar amounts.
Skin, when you say previous eras, are you saying you believe that players that played prior to the advent of free agency were overpaid when compared even to those younger players being locked up early on to long term contracts, nevermind the veteran contracts? I think that even a younger player who signs a long term contract today is being compensated for their perceived value to the club at a rate far greater than any contract signed by any player prior to free agency, in terms of cost to the club, even when adjusted for inflation.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Unless I'm missing something, the answer is as much opinion as fact, but in my opinion Player A and Player B in my example, ignoring what is outside of their control, were exactly equal over the course of their careers.
<< <i>skin, thanks for the reply, and as always some stuff for me to consider. But I want to focus on the very narrow example that I used, where the two players in question both played for exactly the same amount of time. So the question of going away and freeing up salary doesn't enter into it, and the effect of old man years is identical for the two players. What that leaves, I think, is that the player with the greatest peak - ignoring factors outside of his control - put his team in the best position to win a WS. And that point is perfectly valid, and I accept that it has merit. But the flip side of that coin is that since the two players came out equal, the player with the great peak must also have had worse lows. And in those years, again ignoring factors outside of his control, didn't he put his team in the position of not competing to win a WS when they might have otherwise? Doesn't that have equal negative value to his peak's positive value? Ernie Banks had his great years when the Cubs were godawful, and by the time they got good enough to compete for the postseason, Banks was average or worse. If we're focusing on getting to the WS as what ultimately matters, then the Cubs would have been better off if Banks had played at his average level every year, rather than having such a dramatic swing from great to mediocre. Yes, how good the Cubs were was outside of Banks' control, but I think this illustrates that having a great peak and avoiding a great valley are equally important to a team's success. But HOF voters, and fans generally, seem to place great emphasis on the peaks, and dismiss or even ignore the valleys. Jim Rice was not a great baseball player, and Roy White was better; Rice's best season is better than White's, but of the rest of their top 10, White was better 6 out of 9 years. And, unlike Banks, White was still a good player when the Yankees finally caught up to him at the end of his career, and he got to help his team to the World Series three times.
Unless I'm missing something, the answer is as much opinion as fact, but in my opinion Player A and Player B in my example, ignoring what is outside of their control, were exactly equal over the course of their careers. >>
Dallas, if their performances are over the same career length and same amount of plate appearances, then it probably doesn't make too much of a difference what the peaks and lows were, as their final line would be a good barometer.
Silly me just noticed that you already gave them the same amount of at bats.
<< <i>Dallas, if their performances are over the same career length and same amount of plate appearances, then it probably doesn't make too much of a difference what the peaks and lows were, as their final line would be a good barometer.
Silly me just noticed that you already gave them the same amount of at bats. >>
My example is obviously extreme, and as I've said I agree with you that in this example it doesn't make much difference what the peaks and lows were. But HOF voters, and most fans I think, disagree, and rate the player whose performance was more variable higher than the player whose performance was more consistent. It's the only way to get Catfish Hunter into a HOF discussion, or Jim Rice, or lots of other players who actually got in to the HOF. Not being psychic, and so not knowing whether a particular player's peak years are going to line up with when my team is making a run for the postseason, I'd take Roy White over Jim Rice. I might regret it if my team made it's run in 1978 and I was missing Rice, but I'd just as likely see that team run in 1984 and get dragged down by Rice hitting into more DPs than he hit HRs. I think the whole concept of "peak" is terribly overblown.
We all want to be remembered for how we were when we were at our best, before things started chipping away at us and taking its toll. I can't dunk anymore. I probably could if I didn't have a nagging leg problem...and I like to remember how it was when I didn't have that problem and I could do things at will. I think everyone likes to do that.
That is one of the reasons why I will always view Mantle as so great...because when he was at his best, there really were none better. That viewpoint has merit.
Same goes for Koufax. That dude was still humming the ball in 1977 while throwing batting practice for LA. He got robbed...but he was so good at his peak, that I could easily see why people would say he was better than Steve Carlton(despite Carlton having the obviously better career).
Sandy Koufax always fascinated me.
Koufax's arm was shot by 1966. Too bad really, but arthritis was so painful he couldn't continue despite his ability to dominate batters.
In Sandy's case, I would say his post season heroics in '63 and '65 give a lot of meaning when evaluating his reputation. He had 6 outstanding seasons. He was truly dominant during those years, but he only was a help to his team for those 6 seasons. I have always wondered how he would be regarded if he had played on a team that never made it to the World Series. Looking at Marichal, he had a similar WHIP to Koufax, performed consistently over a longer period (innings pitched), but doesn't get near the respect as a pitcher. Both pitched at the same time in the same league. Juan obviously was guilty of a huge wrongdoing, but he was still a fantastic pitcher with almost no World series stats.
Compare Koufax to Warren Spahn (just saw he missed three seasons in the military! 400 wins potentially?) who helped his team for many more years. Looks to me that Warren had about 6 really good years, but he had another 6 or seven very strong years. Perfect example of two HOF players with the opposite kind of careers as far as peak value is concerned.
I would take Spahn every time if I was building a team, but if I had to win one game, it would be Sandy (in his prime) hands down.
So the question boils down to a huge peak or a longer, very good one.
<< <i>I'll throw out as an example Ernie Banks. Banks had a mediocre rookie year, was great for six years, more or less average for nine more years, then closed out with two crappy old man years. Over the course of his career, Banks was a very good player with an OPS+ identical to Tony Perez. And Banks never played in the postseason while Perez did many times. Banks gets some extra credit for the less than half of his career that he played shortstop, but he wasn't a great shortstop so there's a limit to how much extra credit he can get. But the perception is that Banks is an all-time great and that Perez was lucky to make the HOF. Why is that? I think it's because Perez was consistently very good, while Banks was great then average. Were Banks and Perez roughly equal players, or does Banks deserve to be thought of as much better? Why? >>
The fact that Banks played shortstop (even if he wasn't a great one) gives him a big edge to me. From 1967-1980 Perez was amazingly consistent. Banks' peak was higher, but Perez's was good for a longer period. 500+ home runs also comes into play. Banks was not really "more or less average for nine more years" there were three very good years and several above average ones with his only below average year one in which he appears to have been injured.
Banks was a better HITTER............the reason their OPS+ were equal was the ballpark factor, I would like to see a statistic that shows (or doesn't show) how playing on a good team affects a players stats. No doubt the biggest difference between the two guys was the teams they played on. Clean-up batters are not paid to walk, so even though OPS+ is equal, Ernie's higher SLG% and standard OPS shows more value to me. Not huge, but big enough for me to say Banks was the better hitter.
Perez is very under rated. Overshadowed by Bench and Rose, who weren't much better but got all the ink.
In any event, this seems more a semantic point than anything else, and feel free to substitute a different word than "average" if it matters. Banks and Perez had very similar careers, with Banks having a very high peak - better than Perez's by a mile - and then a HUGE dropoff to a level below where Perez played the vast majority of his career. In the end, yes, I'd take Banks because he could play shortstop adequately for several years, but I think the perception of the difference between Perez and Banks is generally much greater than the ability to play shortstop adequately for awhile.
Lets break it down to the simplest analogy possible. Lets look at two pitchers, and use only 'wins' as a measurement(obviously a flawed measurement, but being used to highlight the question).
Player A Had 200 career wins for his team....and played 20 years....with seasons of 27 wins, 26 wins, 25 wins, 8 wins, 8,8,8,8,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,5.
Player B Had 200 career wins for his team....and played 20 years....and this guy had 10 wins, 10 wins, 10 wins, 10,10,10(ten EVERY season).
If the goal is to win a World Series, would the guy who had the best single seasons advance his team's chance to win that World Series? I believe so.
Which of those guys would give a team the best chance to win a World Series?
It is the great performances that give the teams the best chance to win a WS, and in a season where a guy gets 27 wins(or leads the league in OPS+ if you really hate wins), your chances of winning a World Series is much greater, as opposed to the guy who can only put up a league average performance every year.
The guy winning ten games a year is doing a great job of putting your team towards being mediocre, but not so much toward being the best, which really isn't that much different than when the elite guy was only winning 7 games a year. Neither of those mediocre seasons(10 wins or 7 wins) are going to do a whole lot to win a WS. The 27 wins WILL do a whole lot to putting a team closer to winning a WS.
It is easier to find guys hovering around the league average, as opposed to guys hovering at the very top three of the league. So in terms of building a team to win a WS(salary aside), the team that owns the rare player winning 27 games will have an easier job filling in the pieces to compete for a WS, because it is easier to replace or find average players(because there are more of them to choose from).
A team filling itself up with a team full of 'average' 10 game winners will only be an average team....until they find the guy that wins the 27 games, and that is why guys who play at an elite level are of more value
In other words, if Player A gave me three titles...it would be worth it to take the rest of his average to below average years, because he got us three titles. In the meantime, Player B would just have me spinning my wheels hovering around .500 for 20 years...until we found someone of player A's ability to get us to be capable of being the best, and I believe that rare ELITE commodity that player A has, is indeed of more value, despite the fact that they ended up with the same amount of career wins.
To highlight above: Another way of looking at it.
Player A 50 career HR's...over 25 years. He hit 40, then ten times he hit one HR, and the rest hit zero.
Player B 50 career HR's...over 25 years. He hit 2,2,2,2,2,(Two every year).
That one 40 HR year is elite and will greatly increase his teams chances of getting a WS, which is the goal. The guy that hit two per year does pretty much nothing, and really hitting 2 home runs compared to the years where the other guy hits zero, is of little significance between the two, and has very little impact to winning a World Series compared to that one 40 HR season.
Mediocre or bad is easy to find. Elite is not. Player A would be of more value, or better.
The example I had in mind was more like this (using a 10 year career, just for simplicity):
Pitcher A: 26, 25, 24, 19, 17, 15, 13, 8, 7, 6 (160 total)
Pitcher B: 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16 (160 total)
You still have the great peak for Pitcher A, where his extra 8, 9 and 10 wins undoubtedly made making the postseason more likely. But look what happens in the valley - he's now losing an additional 8, 9 or 10 games, and making the postseason is a lost cause, primarily due to this pitcher.
Now, you're example is just as valid as mine, so I'm going to rethink whether the issue is as black and white as it seemed to be. But I'm still inclined to think that weighting peak value as much as it generally is may be a mistake. Or, rather, to weight peak value very highly, but to make no distinction between non-peak seasons that are average and those that are bad is the mistake. In your example, there were no truly bad seasons, just a consistent string of average to a little below average seasons. And maybe there, the weight on peak is appropriate. But if there are bad seasons, those still seem to me to merit the same weight as peak seasons, and for the same reasons. An implication of what I'm suggesting is that a player is "better" if he recognizes that he doesn't have it anymore, and retires, rather than sticking around and screwing up his team's chances. And I think that position has some merit. Banks sticking around as a first baseman who couldn't hit or field particularly well might have cost the Cubs the division in 1969. Or it might not have, but I think ignoring the possibility is wrong if at the same time we're giving him "extra credit" for having great peak seasons.
<< <i>Fair enough, skin, that example wasn't what I was picturing but now that I see it spelled out in detail, I see what you're saying.
The example I had in mind was more like this (using a 10 year career, just for simplicity):
Pitcher A: 26, 25, 24, 19, 17, 15, 13, 8, 7, 6 (160 total)
Pitcher B: 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16 (160 total)
You still have the great peak for Pitcher A, where his extra 8, 9 and 10 wins undoubtedly made making the postseason more likely. But look what happens in the valley - he's now losing an additional 8, 9 or 10 games, and making the postseason is a lost cause, primarily due to this pitcher.
Now, you're example is just as valid as mine, so I'm going to rethink whether the issue is as black and white as it seemed to be. But I'm still inclined to think that weighting peak value as much as it generally is may be a mistake. Or, rather, to weight peak value very highly, but to make no distinction between non-peak seasons that are average and those that are bad is the mistake. In your example, there were no truly bad seasons, just a consistent string of average to a little below average seasons. And maybe there, the weight on peak is appropriate. But if there are bad seasons, those still seem to me to merit the same weight as peak seasons, and for the same reasons. An implication of what I'm suggesting is that a player is "better" if he recognizes that he doesn't have it anymore, and retires, rather than sticking around and screwing up his team's chances. And I think that position has some merit. Banks sticking around as a first baseman who couldn't hit or field particularly well might have cost the Cubs the division in 1969. Or it might not have, but I think ignoring the possibility is wrong if at the same time we're giving him "extra credit" for having great peak seasons. >>
When it comes to baseball analysis, people often use 'opinion' inappropriately, i.e they opine what they believe the value of a BB, 1B, 2B HR, etc..are, when in reality those aren't opinion based. Their values are their values, and baseball's linear nature allows valid measurements to show that quite easily.
However, in this case, I think opinion does weigh heavily, because your example, and mine, both have merit.
If I am looking at which player contributed the most runs, I'm going to use a stat that is a combination rate and counting stat. Stats like OPS+ are heavily skewed when measuring the career of players of varied length, because it is a pure rate stat.
Batter Runs and Win Probability Added are both measures that count toward the wins a player produced above average. Lets look at Mantle and Yaz again in WPA.
Mantle 93 wins above average
Yaz.....60 wins above average
This kind of lessens the longevity/peak factor a little, and really highlights how good Mantle was, because he produced 33 more wins that Yaz, despite playing much less years. So Yaz is getting credit for his old man years, and Mantle's extreme dominance is showed already.
Lets look at the different ways we can break down the analysis between the two using Win Probability Added(which includes all the men on base hitting):
1)Their lifetime total of wins above average. This gives credit for old man years(though some guys do get hurt if they are below average for their old man years, and could negatively view their peak perception, but we will look at peak anyway, so that won't matter). In total, this is how many wins above average that they contributed at the MLB level. This will obviously favor the guys who were great(which it should), favors the guys who were also above average for a very long time, and like mentioned above it will take a nick off for the guys who were below average as an old man.
Mantle 93
Yaz.....60
2)Wins above average per year. This kind of touches upon what you were talking about. Should a guy be viewed negatively if he hung on too long and hurt his team. This will account for that.
Mantle 5.16 per year
Yaz 2.6 per year
3)Wins above average per 162 games. Very similar as to above, but helps the guys who may have missed 15-20 games due to injury, as it shows how good he was when he was playing, as opposed to just being beaten because another guy played more games than him.
Mantle 6.7
Yaz.....3.5
4)Wins above average for their peak. You can use 4, 6, 8, 10, or 12 year peaks, as that usually encompasses the prime of a players career. I'm going to use the four year and eight year measurement. Note: I also added a per 162 game for the peak to help view the guys who may also have been injured more in their peak.
4 YR Peak
Mantle 30....and 8.8 per 162 games.
Yaz.....23....and 6.3 per 162 games.
8YR Peak
Mantle 56....and 8.3 per 162 games
Yaz....38.....and 5.6 per 162 games
There really aren't many other ways or angles to look at it when comparing players. In this case, Mantle beats Yaz handily in every single angle one can look at it...so it is very cut and dry on who was better. The problem will come where you have guys 'splitting' the wins where you have to put some sort of value on each angle(which is HARD).
So, if I were to go and dig my hands in a study, I would do the above, and also do it with a couple other top measurements to get a better overall view/appraisal of the player, showing the nuances each measurement has to offer. Heck, I would even do an 'old school' approach for one of the measurements.
That would be a total of FIVE categories, with a mixture of peak, and career in there...all angles touched. A simple tally where Mantle wins 5-0. Do it with two other measurements and Mantle would have a 15-0 record vs Yaz.
A value can be assigned to each category too so that each player can get a value in each category...which would be hard to determine what value.
In your HOF study, if you ranked every HOF player in each of the above categories, you could come up with a pretty neat list of their average rank among HOFer's too. For career WPA someone would be ranked 1st, someone 88th. Do that for each category, and you have an average ranking of all HOFers among all the different angles that can be looked at. Add in two other measurements, rinse, repeat, and you have a pretty good objective list.
<< <i>When it comes to baseball analysis, people often use 'opinion' inappropriately, i.e they opine what they believe the value of a BB, 1B, 2B HR, etc..are, when in reality those aren't opinion based. Their values are their values, and baseball's linear nature allows valid measurements to show that quite easily.
However, in this case, I think opinion does weigh heavily, because your example, and mine, both have merit. >>
For sure, opinion has little place in determining what a player is worth. Where opinion is unavoidable, though, is in determining whether one player was "better" than another, particularly if their "worth" over the length of their careers was about the same. And it's in that context where peak value, and career value, and old-man years, and a bunch of other stuff comes into play. To say that a player is worthy of the HOF because he had five fantastic seasons that resulted in WS appearances and who cares about the rest of his career is fairly common. But how is that different from saying that a player had five really crappy seasons that prevented his team from making the postseason, and who cares about the rest of his career? To me, they both appear to be equally wrong - the five fantastic seasons surely do matter, but the five crappy seasons matter, too. In the end, I think "better than" as a baseball function should depend mostly on career averages and the length of the career. I think bonus credit is reasonable - as in your example - for truly great seasons, but so, too, is a deduction for truly bad seasons. In your example, which is close to a Banks pattern, there may be peak points only, since there were no truly bad seasons. But for a Pete Rose, or a Ryan Howard, who have truly atrocious seasons, there should be a penalty for taking up a roster spot, and cashing a paycheck, and playing that poorly.
<< <i>
<< <i>When it comes to baseball analysis, people often use 'opinion' inappropriately, i.e they opine what they believe the value of a BB, 1B, 2B HR, etc..are, when in reality those aren't opinion based. Their values are their values, and baseball's linear nature allows valid measurements to show that quite easily.
However, in this case, I think opinion does weigh heavily, because your example, and mine, both have merit. >>
For sure, opinion has little place in determining what a player is worth. Where opinion is unavoidable, though, is in determining whether one player was "better" than another, particularly if their "worth" over the length of their careers was about the same. And it's in that context where peak value, and career value, and old-man years, and a bunch of other stuff comes into play. To say that a player is worthy of the HOF because he had five fantastic seasons that resulted in WS appearances and who cares about the rest of his career is fairly common. But how is that different from saying that a player had five really crappy seasons that prevented his team from making the postseason, and who cares about the rest of his career? To me, they both appear to be equally wrong - the five fantastic seasons surely do matter, but the five crappy seasons matter, too. In the end, I think "better than" as a baseball function should depend mostly on career averages and the length of the career. I think bonus credit is reasonable - as in your example - for truly great seasons, but so, too, is a deduction for truly bad seasons. In your example, which is close to a Banks pattern, there may be peak points only, since there were no truly bad seasons. But for a Pete Rose, or a Ryan Howard, who have truly atrocious seasons, there should be a penalty for taking up a roster spot, and cashing a paycheck, and playing that poorly. >>
All very solid points....and I believe the above comparison with Mantle and Yaz touches all angles, and is pretty objective. One can use it as a whole encompassing thing using all the categories, or one can simply use it just to see who was the best at his peak, or best at career value.
WPA Career
Rose 54.6
Carew 45.2
WPA PER Year
Rose 2.27
Carew 2.37
WPA Per 162 Games
Rose 3.0
Carew 3.5
WPA 4YR Peak
Rose 17.1.....4.9 per 162
Carew 20.6....6 per 162
WPA 8YR Peak
Rose 32.6.....4.6
Carew 30.5...4.7
Batter Runs Career
Rose 393
Carew 418
Batter Runs Per Year
Rose 16.3
Carew 22
Batter Runs Per 162
Rose 18
Carew 27
Batter Runs 4YR Peak
Rose 145
Carew 193
Batter Runs 8YR peak
Rose 267
Carew 307
Offensive War Career
Rose 82
Carew 80
Offensive War per year
Rose 3.4
Carew 4.2
Offensive war per 650 plate appearances
Rose 3.9
Carew 5.5
Offensive War 4 YR peak
Rose 21.8
Carew 30.3
Offensive War 8 YR peak
Rose 41.6
Carew 50.9
Tallying the above, Carew wins 12-3. If you ranked each among all HOFer's it would highlight their standing even more.
Do the above exercise with Phelps and Eddie Murray. Murray wins 15-0. That is far more telling(and accurate).
WPA Career
Cruz 30.4
Rice 25.8
WPA Per Year
Cruz 1.6
Rice 1.61
WPA Per 162 Games
Cruz 2.6
Rice 2.5
WPA 4YR Peak
Cruz 14.3
Rice 14.1
WPA 8YR Peak
Cruz 23.1
RIce 20.8
Batter RUns Career
Cruz 232
Rice 299
Batter RUns per year
Cruz 12.2
Rice 18.6
Batter Runs per 162
Cruz 16
Rice 23
Batter Runs 4Yr peak
Cruz 103
Rice 148
Batter Runs 8yr Peak
Cruz 190
Rice 228
Offensive WAR career
Cruz 44.2
Rice 45
Offensive WAR per yr
Cruz 2.32
Rice 2.8
Offensive WAR per 650 plate appearances
Cruz 3.7
Rice 3.7
Offenisve WAR 4YR PK
Cruz 16.8
Rice 20.8
Offensive WAR 8yr PK
Cruz 30.5
Rice 32.7
Rice 10, Cruz 4, Tied 1
Much closer than most would expect! I am sure there are several NON HOFer's that would beat Rice in this.
Pedro Guerrero beats Rice 12-3. Would take too long to do all the guys that beat Rice.
WPA Career
Mantle 93
Aaron 98
Mays 99.5
WPA per year
Mantle 5.16
Aaron 4.29
Mays 4.52
WPA Per 162
Mantle 6.7
Aaron 5.3
Mays 5
WPA 4YR Peak
Mantle 30
Aaron 25.6
Mays 27
WPA 8 YR Peak
Mantle 56
Aaron 42.6
Mays 50.1
Batter Runs Career
Mantle 859
Aaron 922
Mays 846
Batter Runs per year
Mantle 47.7
Aaron 40.8
Mays 38.4
Batter Runs per 162
Mantle 58
Aaron 45
Mays 46
Batter RUns 4yr Peak
Mantle 309
Aaron 226
Mays 226
Batter RUns 8 YR Peak
Mantle 538
Aaron 432
Mays 435
Offensive WAR Career
Mantle 116
Aaron 131
Mays 136.4
Offensive WAR per year
Mantle 6.44
Aaron 5.69
Mays 6.2
Offensive WAR per 650 Plate Appearances
Mantle 8.2
Aaron 6.7
Mays 7.6
Offensive War 4yr Peak
Mantle 39.6
Aaron 30.8
Mays 36
Offensive WAR 8 YR Peak
Mantle 70.6
Aaron 60.5
Mays 67.4
Mantle wins 12-3, with an easy win. The fact that Mantle was so close to Aaron in the career totals categories, despite having 4,034 less plate appearances is very telling, and would probably be enough for most to stop right there and not even bother doing any further investigation.
Mantle beats Mays 13-2
Mays beats Aaron 11-3-1
Round Robin:
Mantle wins 12
Aaron 1
Mays 2
If taken as a group, three points awarded for first place, two for second, and one for third:
Mantle 40 pts
Mays 28 pts
Aaron 22 pts