Any statisticians around? Warning: Math!

[Guest]

I did not say that Gaylord Perry is not great, nor did I infer that. I meant by comparison. IMHO, you cannot consider GAYLORD #35 and BENCH not make the list at all. In EVERY TOP 50 LIST I have ever seen Johnny Bench was on it, and yet you suggest there is not even 1 great catcher, yet the war adds and subtracts points based on position....that is reason for me by itself to suggest WAR needs "tweaking".

Well you've seen my Top 50 list and Johnny Bench is not on it. Neither Bench, nor any catcher thusfar in the history of the game, has been able to assemble a span of five seasons resulting in a WAR of 8.0+.

It's not an insult to someone to say "they weren't capable of winning at least five MVP awards in their prime."

It is a very exclusive list.

I actually agree with that concept...but how do they determine how much weight. They must have been drawing at straws on some of the formulas (grin).
Seriously though, I hope it considers "situational hitting"..i still haven't seen a response on that one.

They were not drawing at straws. Believe me. The mainforce behind this is now a MLB employee making six figures to now process these figures for a team. If that doesn't convince you WAR is legit, I don't know what will.

If you spent some time on the stat sites you'd see how it's pieced together. Rbat, Rbaser, Rroe, Rdp, Rfield, Rpos, Rrep. It's a big puzzle. Just having to be willing to piece it in place.

 

[Guest]

[quote="Chris Levy":lumlfcfj]

I like to collect Record Holders, those that are considered best at their position, and Fan Favorites....besides, they will hold their value better.

But what happens when a record is broken? You sell off your collection of the player and chase the new guy?

I look at it like this. The MVP trophy as we have come to know it was absent from the first 60 years of the game. The Cy Young award came even later. Both were also voted on in a subjective manner. The same can be said about All-Star appearances.

So I throw out MVP awards, Cy Young awards, and All-Star appearances as a way of measuring a player's 'greatness.'

Instead, I credit a player with a WAR 8.0+ MVP as a MVP/Cy Young winner, and a WAR of 5.0+ MVP as an All-Star. This is what the developer of the formula intended.

My pWAR formula states X amount of MVP seasons = "great."

The question is, how many MVP seasons does it take for public opinion to believe someone is great? I propose five.

I have no problem with that logic....I have a problem when it is suggested that you can accurately state how great someone is based by their war numbers.

e.g. everyone with 5+ 8.0 WAR numbers are great players, but player with war value 9 is not necessarily greater than player with war value 8.8

This is one of the major problems with a mathematical antilogarithm such as this. The variables are of an arbitrary selection. I have showed this formula to several of the Stats professors here at the University of Illinois and the main comment was that the selective data sets used (and not full career numbers) fail to gain statistical confidence.[/quote:lumlfcfj]

George, if I said that from 1939-41 before he gave up time to World War 2, DiMaggio's averaged...
108 R, 183 H, 34 2B, 30 HR, 128 RBI, 63 BB, 21 SO, .363 BA, .437 OBP, .646 SLG, 1.083 OPS

...and concluded "Joe DiMaggio was great!" Everyone would say "Yeah!!! He was great!"

But I'm not doing that. I'm saying for that time period DiMaggio averaged a WAR of X ... everyone is stopping and going "Huh? What?"

It's not that complicated what I'm doing. But it won't work with career stats. I'm cherry picking the best years to eliminate injury, death, time lost due to war, careers shortened by segregation, and early retirement.

Once I've identified the 10, 7, or 5 seasons with the highest WAR it's simply a matter of determining average for those time periods and *poof* pWAR.

 

[George_Calfas]

[quote="George_Calfas":13wvbr8o]

[quote="Chris Levy":13wvbr8o]

I like to collect Record Holders, those that are considered best at their position, and Fan Favorites....besides, they will hold their value better.

But what happens when a record is broken? You sell off your collection of the player and chase the new guy?

I look at it like this. The MVP trophy as we have come to know it was absent from the first 60 years of the game. The Cy Young award came even later. Both were also voted on in a subjective manner. The same can be said about All-Star appearances.

So I throw out MVP awards, Cy Young awards, and All-Star appearances as a way of measuring a player's 'greatness.'

Instead, I credit a player with a WAR 8.0+ MVP as a MVP/Cy Young winner, and a WAR of 5.0+ MVP as an All-Star. This is what the developer of the formula intended.

My pWAR formula states X amount of MVP seasons = "great."

The question is, how many MVP seasons does it take for public opinion to believe someone is great? I propose five.

I have no problem with that logic....I have a problem when it is suggested that you can accurately state how great someone is based by their war numbers.

e.g. everyone with 5+ 8.0 WAR numbers are great players, but player with war value 9 is not necessarily greater than player with war value 8.8

This is one of the major problems with a mathematical antilogarithm such as this. The variables are of an arbitrary selection. I have showed this formula to several of the Stats professors here at the University of Illinois and the main comment was that the selective data sets used (and not full career numbers) fail to gain statistical confidence.[/quote:13wvbr8o]

George, if I said that from 1939-41 before he gave up time to World War 2, DiMaggio's averaged...
108 R, 183 H, 34 2B, 30 HR, 128 RBI, 63 BB, 21 SO, .363 BA, .437 OBP, .646 SLG, 1.083 OPS

...and concluded "Joe DiMaggio was great!" Everyone would say "Yeah!!! He was great!"

But I'm not doing that. I'm saying for that time period DiMaggio averaged a WAR of X ... everyone is stopping and going "Huh? What?"

It's not that complicated what I'm doing. But it won't work with career stats. I'm cherry picking the best years to eliminate injury, death, time lost due to war, careers shortened by segregation, and early retirement.

Once I've identified the 10, 7, or 5 seasons with the highest WAR it's simply a matter of determining average for those time periods and *poof* pWAR.[/quote:13wvbr8o]

Yes, I have fully read and understand, however that is the theoretical problem with such a formula. What I am saying is, no one would ever include this in a text book or scholarly discussion; the formula and selective data sets are lacking statistical confidence, that's all. Your ideas are fine, noteworthy, and great for discussion just too arbitrary.

 

[hofautos]

[quote="Chris Levy":2pkpp9o8]

I have no problems with the statistics, I agree Doyle wasn't a superstar over the course of his career, but he might have been the biggest part of the Giants offense from 1911-1915, a five year span where he was also amoung the league leaders and up to that point all-time 2B leaders in production. At the very least an all-star caliber player, if not an MVP type player, but pWAR has him as slightly less than an All-Star and more like an everyday guy, which simply isn't the case.

In terms of WAR, Art Fletcher and George Burns were found to be more valuable in terms of WAR for the pre-1920 Giants teams. Doyle had two seasons of WAR 5.0+ (All-Star), so I feel pWAR accurately rated him at 4.8.

I did not develop WAR. pWAR is just a way of interpreting WAR using a sample size other than one season or an entire career.

I think Doyle's rating is an accurate performance over the best five years of his career. Five years which you feel were great, but WAR has determined to be a mix of both good and above average.

To each their own, he was named the MVP and top 5 in several offensive categories over that time span, not top five at his position, top five in all of baseball but because others at his position were all-time greats he is devalued. Fletcher never lead the league in any category except HBP and never finished higher than 12th in MVP voting. Burns was a great run scorer and SB king and I'd say he was very comparable to Doyle but they played different positions. How would Doyle fair compared to SS of the era.

Him being named MVP is irrelevant. He played in the media capitol of the country, with the largest grouping of sports reporters. He was reportedly a very well-liked fellow. It's easy to see how "one of the boys" could simply be given a MVP trophy as a jesture.

1910-'12, '15, and '19 were the WAR seasons used to generate the pWAR of 4.8. Two of those seasons were determined by WAR to be All-Star level, while the remaining three were determined to be Starter level.

Here is what killed Doyle. If you take out defense, Doyle's p(oWAR) is 5.2 (All-Star). The terrible defensive statistics he posted during that same span lower his WAR below the 5 threshold.[/quote:2pkpp9o8]

And WAR has the "correct formula" to define how much weight should be applied for defense, right? You have to admit, it's very subjective.
When you say terrible defense, are we talking below average, or are we talking really terrible?

Can someone be considered great, even though they have bad defense? Manny Ramiriez?

 

[hofautos]

CHEVY>>The only first basemen with a pWAR of 5.0+ who maintained it for 10 seasons were Jeff Bagwell, Dick Allen, Mark McGwire, Keith Hernandez, and Rafael Palmeiro.

I don't know how relevant statements like this are?

who cares about 5.0+ for 10 years...how about 9.5 for 4 years, 8 for 4 years and 4 for 2 years?
Why do you keep talking like it has to be 8.0+ for 5 years, or 5.0 for 10 years?

what about 7.0 for 10 years or 9 for 3 years, 7 for 4 years, and 4 for 3 years????

I don't get these statements?

 

[Guest]

I never got an answer from Chevy on clutch/situation hitting. If it is not in WAR, then besides Longevity, it's inability to define a great catcher, i would add that as a THIRD MAJOR flaw. Clutch hitting in my mind should carry HUGE weight. Some people can get hits when there is no pressure but unable to come through when it really matters, and other players are just the opposite. I know, because I used to be able to shoot a great game of pool, but when there was pressure, anxiety or stress or something would always get to me, and i would choke...which is also why I always shot a better game after 1 or 2 beers....3-4 and i declined again...ANYWAY, point being, CLUTCH HITTING ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO CARRY A HUGE WEIGHT IN A FORMULA I WOULD ACCEPT.

1. I have chosen to exclude longevity because when I expanded to ten years (the results of which are higher up in this thread) only 21 players were identified as maintaining the standard of WAR 8.0+.

21 is too small a result, so when the sample size was limited to 5 years a result of 52 was produced.

Therefore, it can be said that a prime is typically five seasons, because that is the LARGEST sample size that will produce 50+ results within the target.

2. You are making the assumption that at least one of every position should have at least one great player. That is not true. Johnny Bench was a good player. The best ever at his position. But, being the best at your position, doesn't necessarily elevate you into the "top x players" of all time. His data does not fit the criteria.

3. Of course WAR addresses situational hitting. There are almost a dozen components of the WAR equation that involve how the player scored or created runs. Have you looked at how RAR is compiled? It doesn't sound like you have.

 

[Guest]

CHEVY>>The only first basemen with a pWAR of 5.0+ who maintained it for 10 seasons were Jeff Bagwell, Dick Allen, Mark McGwire, Keith Hernandez, and Rafael Palmeiro.

I don't know how relevant statements like this are?

who cares about 5.0+ for 10 years...how about 9.5 for 4 years, 8 for 4 years and 4 for 2 years?
Why do you keep talking like it has to be 8.0+ for 5 years, or 5.0 for 10 years?

what about 7.0 for 10 years or 9 for 3 years, 7 for 4 years, and 4 for 3 years????

I don't get these statements?

Since you obviously haven't read the information released on WAR, I'm going to have to walk you through it.

You've quoted these ratings to me before so I know you've seen them:
Black Ink Batting - Average HOFer ? 27
Gray Ink Batting - Average HOFer ? 144
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - Likely HOFer ? 100
Hall of Fame Standards Batting - Average HOFer ? 50

Well if you look at the WAR statistics, the following has been defined.
8.0+ MVP Quality
5.0+ All-Star Quality
2.0+ Starter
0.0-2.0 Reserve
< 0 Replacement

I did not choose, nor did I set, those plateaus. They were set by the WAR developers and adopted uniformly by sites such as Baseball-Reference and others.

Therefore, it is significant whenever a player maintains MVP Quality for X years or All-Star Quality for X years.

Many people believe that a modern Hall of Fame player should have 10 seasons of All-Star Quality. Therefore, I felt it was significant and worth noting the players outside of the Hall of Fame I have thus far identified as meeting this requirement.

 

[hofautos]

[quote="Chris Levy":2zdsrwph]

I like to collect Record Holders, those that are considered best at their position, and Fan Favorites....besides, they will hold their value better.

But what happens when a record is broken? You sell off your collection of the player and chase the new guy?

I look at it like this. The MVP trophy as we have come to know it was absent from the first 60 years of the game. The Cy Young award came even later. Both were also voted on in a subjective manner. The same can be said about All-Star appearances.

So I throw out MVP awards, Cy Young awards, and All-Star appearances as a way of measuring a player's 'greatness.'

Instead, I credit a player with a WAR 8.0+ MVP as a MVP/Cy Young winner, and a WAR of 5.0+ MVP as an All-Star. This is what the developer of the formula intended.

My pWAR formula states X amount of MVP seasons = "great."

The question is, how many MVP seasons does it take for public opinion to believe someone is great? I propose five.

I have no problem with that logic....I have a problem when it is suggested that you can accurately state how great someone is based by their war numbers.

e.g. everyone with 5+ 8.0 WAR numbers are great players, but player with war value 9 is not necessarily greater than player with war value 8.8

This is one of the major problems with a mathematical antilogarithm such as this. The variables are of an arbitrary selection. I have showed this formula to several of the Stats professors here at the University of Illinois and the main comment was that the selective data sets used (and not full career numbers) fail to gain statistical confidence.[/quote:2zdsrwph]

Agreed,
I think the statistic could be modified in many positive ways and then used "correctly" and would be very valuable.
I personally would throw out any formula that attributes "some author's" variable for different positions, and defense.
I would simply use the stat to compare players of the same era and of the same position...e.g. compare all 1st basemen to 1st basemen of the same era.
I then would have a formula just for defense.

In doing so,
I would suggest who were the best 1st basemen during each decade, who were the best pitchers for each decade, etc...
I would then suggest who the best defensive players were
I would then use SLUGGING and OPS to define who the best sluggers were. (my favorite stat)

I wouldn't worry about saying pitcher x is greater than shortstop y when they were of completely different generations.
To compare unlike positions, especially of different times is ludicrous imho.

My list would include the top 3-4 players of each position for each decade (if it was close add a 5th) to define great.

Then i would use polls to define who were the most popular. I believe some players should be on the "great list" based on their character..they wouldn't even be considered in the running if they weren't at least very good players...e.g. I am ok with people like maz making the HOF. I am not saying to subtract points for bad character, but certain individuals do deserve bonus points for their character. I am also ok, with snubbing people that are marginal if they are idiots.

 

[Guest]

[quote="Chris Levy":3p7yjkml]

I like to collect Record Holders, those that are considered best at their position, and Fan Favorites....besides, they will hold their value better.

But what happens when a record is broken? You sell off your collection of the player and chase the new guy?

I look at it like this. The MVP trophy as we have come to know it was absent from the first 60 years of the game. The Cy Young award came even later. Both were also voted on in a subjective manner. The same can be said about All-Star appearances.

So I throw out MVP awards, Cy Young awards, and All-Star appearances as a way of measuring a player's 'greatness.'

Instead, I credit a player with a WAR 8.0+ MVP as a MVP/Cy Young winner, and a WAR of 5.0+ MVP as an All-Star. This is what the developer of the formula intended.

My pWAR formula states X amount of MVP seasons = "great."

The question is, how many MVP seasons does it take for public opinion to believe someone is great? I propose five.

I have no problem with that logic....I have a problem when it is suggested that you can accurately state how great someone is based by their war numbers.

e.g. everyone with 5+ 8.0 WAR numbers are great players, but player with war value 9 is not necessarily greater than player with war value 8.8

This is one of the major problems with a mathematical antilogarithm such as this. The variables are of an arbitrary selection. I have showed this formula to several of the Stats professors here at the University of Illinois and the main comment was that the selective data sets used (and not full career numbers) fail to gain statistical confidence.

Agreed,
I think the statistic could be modified in many positive ways and then used "correctly" and would be very valuable.
I personally would throw out any formula that attributes "some author's" variable for different positions, and defense.
I would simply use the stat to compare players of the same era and of the same position...e.g. compare all 1st basemen to 1st basemen of the same era.
I then would have a formula just for defense.

In doing so,
I would suggest who were the best 1st basemen during each decade, who were the best pitchers for each decade, etc...
I would then suggest who the best defensive players were
I would then use SLUGGING and OPS to define who the best sluggers were. (my favorite stat)

I wouldn't worry about saying pitcher x is greater than shortstop y when they were of completely different generations.
To compare unlike positions, especially of different times is ludicrous imho.

My list would include the top 3-4 players of each position for each decade (if it was close add a 5th) to define great.

Then i would use polls to define who were the most popular. I believe some players should be on the "great list" based on their character..they wouldn't even be considered in the running if they weren't at least very good players...e.g. I am ok with people like maz making the HOF. I am not saying to subtract points for bad character, but certain individuals do deserve bonus points for their character. I am also ok, with snubbing people that are marginal if they are idiots.[/quote:3p7yjkml]

It's become painfully clear after reading your last few posts on the subject that you have no understanding about WAR. Because, the very things you claim you dislike about WAR, are included as core tennants of it.

Of course it factors in clutch hitting! Of course it can identify the best players at each position of each era!

Look up at the top of the FCB page and click on the link that says "Chat." I'll do my best to go over it with you, because you've been interested in the topic enough to reply countless times, so you must want to learn.

 

[hofautos]

CHEVY>>The only first basemen with a pWAR of 5.0+ who maintained it for 10 seasons were Jeff Bagwell, Dick Allen, Mark McGwire, Keith Hernandez, and Rafael Palmeiro.

I don't know how relevant statements like this are?

who cares about 5.0+ for 10 years...how about 9.5 for 4 years, 8 for 4 years and 4 for 2 years?
Why do you keep talking like it has to be 8.0+ for 5 years, or 5.0 for 10 years?

what about 7.0 for 10 years or 9 for 3 years, 7 for 4 years, and 4 for 3 years????

I don't get these statements?

Since you obviously haven't read the information released on WAR, I'm going to have to walk you through it.

You've quoted these ratings to me before so I know you've seen them:
Black Ink Batting - Average HOFer ? 27
Gray Ink Batting - Average HOFer ? 144
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - Likely HOFer ? 100
Hall of Fame Standards Batting - Average HOFer ? 50

Well if you look at the WAR statistics, the following has been defined.
8.0+ MVP Quality
5.0+ All-Star Quality
2.0+ Starter
0.0-2.0 Reserve
< 0 Replacement

I did not choose, nor did I set, those plateaus. They were set by the WAR developers and adopted uniformly by sites such as Baseball-Reference and others.

Therefore, it is significant whenever a player maintains MVP Quality for X years or All-Star Quality for X years.

Many people believe that a modern Hall of Fame player should have 10 seasons of All-Star Quality. Therefore, I felt it was significant and worth noting the players outside of the Hall of Fame I have thus far identified as meeting this requirement.

Ok, there is the problem i have...who said someone HOF'ers should have 10 seasons of all-star quality??
I think if someone has 4 MVP quality, 4 ALL star quality and 2 starter, they could very well be considered great. Just like you suggest they have to have 5 MVP seasons. 10 years to me is just how many years someone must have to be elgible for hof. I can accept declining years, especially if they started late. If someone has 4 10.0 WAR, 5 7.8, and 1 3.2, they would probably be great wouldn't they?
also is 10 the highest WAR rate possible?

 

[hofautos]

Did I say "how much" ones character defines their greatness. I just said it is in the formula...at least in determining HOF'ers...like it or not, it's a fact...bonk on.

You can't put a mathmatical value on character. What would you propose? +3 for Clemente dying in a plane crash doing missionary work? -0.5 for Mays for not shaking hands at autograph signing? -1 for Ruth for being a fall down drunk? -3 for Anson for crusaging to keep African-Americans out of the National League? It's proposterous.

.

If arbitrary values can be given for position, certainly bonus points can be given for character IMHO.
For the purpose of this thread though, i will concede to eliminate that from the equation....if it was for my own personal ranking though, i wouild definetely give bonus points for character, just as I do in my own decision processing...e.g. +20 for anyone that stays on the same team regardless of money throughout their career. -20 for know steroid usage. My own brain processes for character, so if i were to use a formula to determine my collecting habits, I would assign bonus points for character..but again for the purpose of this thread, I will concede it as hogwash :lol:

 

[Guest]

CHEVY>>The only first basemen with a pWAR of 5.0+ who maintained it for 10 seasons were Jeff Bagwell, Dick Allen, Mark McGwire, Keith Hernandez, and Rafael Palmeiro.

I don't know how relevant statements like this are?

who cares about 5.0+ for 10 years...how about 9.5 for 4 years, 8 for 4 years and 4 for 2 years?
Why do you keep talking like it has to be 8.0+ for 5 years, or 5.0 for 10 years?

what about 7.0 for 10 years or 9 for 3 years, 7 for 4 years, and 4 for 3 years????

I don't get these statements?

Since you obviously haven't read the information released on WAR, I'm going to have to walk you through it.

You've quoted these ratings to me before so I know you've seen them:
Black Ink Batting - Average HOFer ? 27
Gray Ink Batting - Average HOFer ? 144
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - Likely HOFer ? 100
Hall of Fame Standards Batting - Average HOFer ? 50

Well if you look at the WAR statistics, the following has been defined.
8.0+ MVP Quality
5.0+ All-Star Quality
2.0+ Starter
0.0-2.0 Reserve
< 0 Replacement

I did not choose, nor did I set, those plateaus. They were set by the WAR developers and adopted uniformly by sites such as Baseball-Reference and others.

Therefore, it is significant whenever a player maintains MVP Quality for X years or All-Star Quality for X years.

Many people believe that a modern Hall of Fame player should have 10 seasons of All-Star Quality. Therefore, I felt it was significant and worth noting the players outside of the Hall of Fame I have thus far identified as meeting this requirement.

Ok, there is the problem i have...who said someone HOF'ers should have 10 seasons of all-star quality??
I think if someone has 4 MVP quality, 4 ALL star quality and 2 starter, they could very well be considered great. Just like you suggest they have to have 5 MVP seasons. 10 years to me is just how many years someone must have to be elgible for hof. I can accept declining years, especially if they started late. If someone has 4 10.0 WAR, 5 7.8, and 1 3.2, they would probably be great wouldn't they?
also is 10 the highest WAR rate possible?

In the Hall of Fame debates/discussions/articles in the past you will see numerous fans, writers, and "experts" look for 10 quality seasons when determining who to vote for the Hall of Fame. To their credit, with players who began their career after 1960 (post-WW2, post-integration, and during improved sports medicine/condition) this does work. The problem is when they try to apply it to pre-1960 players who lost time off their career due to the aforementioned reasons.

There is no such thing as a "highest possible" WAR. There is no cap.

The player whose WARs you stated would have an incredible pWAR of 9.6. At 7 years it would drop to 9.1 and at 10 years it would remain 8.2. He would be one of only 22 players to maintain a war of 8.0+ for 10 years.

 

[hofautos]

[quote="Chris Levy":19h961cp]

CHEVY>>The only first basemen with a pWAR of 5.0+ who maintained it for 10 seasons were Jeff Bagwell, Dick Allen, Mark McGwire, Keith Hernandez, and Rafael Palmeiro.

I don't know how relevant statements like this are?

who cares about 5.0+ for 10 years...how about 9.5 for 4 years, 8 for 4 years and 4 for 2 years?
Why do you keep talking like it has to be 8.0+ for 5 years, or 5.0 for 10 years?

what about 7.0 for 10 years or 9 for 3 years, 7 for 4 years, and 4 for 3 years????

I don't get these statements?

Since you obviously haven't read the information released on WAR, I'm going to have to walk you through it.

You've quoted these ratings to me before so I know you've seen them:
Black Ink Batting - Average HOFer ? 27
Gray Ink Batting - Average HOFer ? 144
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - Likely HOFer ? 100
Hall of Fame Standards Batting - Average HOFer ? 50

Well if you look at the WAR statistics, the following has been defined.
8.0+ MVP Quality
5.0+ All-Star Quality
2.0+ Starter
0.0-2.0 Reserve
< 0 Replacement

I did not choose, nor did I set, those plateaus. They were set by the WAR developers and adopted uniformly by sites such as Baseball-Reference and others.

Therefore, it is significant whenever a player maintains MVP Quality for X years or All-Star Quality for X years.

Many people believe that a modern Hall of Fame player should have 10 seasons of All-Star Quality. Therefore, I felt it was significant and worth noting the players outside of the Hall of Fame I have thus far identified as meeting this requirement.

Ok, there is the problem i have...who said someone HOF'ers should have 10 seasons of all-star quality??
I think if someone has 4 MVP quality, 4 ALL star quality and 2 starter, they could very well be considered great. Just like you suggest they have to have 5 MVP seasons. 10 years to me is just how many years someone must have to be elgible for hof. I can accept declining years, especially if they started late. If someone has 4 10.0 WAR, 5 7.8, and 1 3.2, they would probably be great wouldn't they?
also is 10 the highest WAR rate possible?

In the Hall of Fame debates/discussions/articles in the past you will see numerous fans, writers, and "experts" look for 10 quality seasons when determining who to vote for the Hall of Fame. To their credit, with players who began their career after 1960 (post-WW2, post-integration, and during improved sports medicine/condition) this does work. The problem is when they try to apply it to pre-1960 players who lost time off their career due to the aforementioned reasons.

There is no such thing as a "highest possible" WAR. There is no cap.

The player whose WARs you stated would have an incredible pWAR of 9.6. At 7 years it would drop to 9.1 and at 10 years it would remain 8.2. He would be one of only 22 players to maintain a war of 8.0+ for 10 years.[/quote:19h961cp]

Thank you, That is my point. One doesn't need 10 "ALL STAR SEASONS"(WAR 5) or 5 "MVP" seasons(WAR 8) to be considered great. Someone can be great without either of those 2 requirements. Maybe there aren't many players like that, but all data should be sampled, not just players meeting x amount of war 5 or x amount of war 8. That is my only point. I would like to see a WAR that was an average of a players 10 best years, regardless how many WAR8 and how many WAR 5's they had. Then I wouild give more credence.

I also would like it the formula to be adjusted as I suggested before where different weights assigned to each 5 years, 7 years, 10 years.,..then I would almost accept it...There still needs more tweaking for position players if it can't define 1 great catcher.

something like

4*(best 5 years) + 2*(next best 2 years) + (next best 3 years) + magic number for catchers,so that bench = the 16th greatest player of all time (grin).

 

[Guest]

I would like to see a WAR that was an average of a players 10 best years, regardless how many 8 and how many 5's they had.

That is EXACTLY what pWAR is!

 

[hofautos]

I would like to see a WAR that was an average of a players 10 best years, regardless how many 8 and how many 5's they had.

That is EXACTLY what pWAR is!

Oh, ok, i must have missed that. a 10 year pWar is better than a 5 year 8war imho, but even better would be my sample formula.
4*(best 5 years) + 2*(next best 2 years) + (next best 3 years) + magic number for catchers

 

[Guest]

Let me go real slow. Step by step.

Ron Santo is the guy I'd like to most see in the HOF. He fits both the WAR 8.0+ for 5 seasons, and the WAR 5.0+ for 10 seasons criteria.

Santo's 10 best WAR seasons were.
10.2 ('67), 8.3 ('66), 7.9 ('64), 7.6 ('65), 6.1 ('69), 5.7 ('63), 5.6 ('68), 5.1 ('72), 4.2 ('70), and 2.7 ('71).

Let's check totals.
2 WAR 8.0+ season. (MVP Quality)
6 WAR 5.0+ seasons. (All-Star Quality)
2 WAR 2.0+ seasons. (Starter)

But Santo's pWAR (five year average) is 8.0, which means for his five best seasons he was MVP Quality.
For Santo's ten best seasons his average WAR is 6.3, which means for his ten best seasons he was All-Star Quality.

 

[hofautos]

I did not say that Gaylord Perry is not great, nor did I infer that. I meant by comparison. IMHO, you cannot consider GAYLORD #35 and BENCH not make the list at all. In EVERY TOP 50 LIST I have ever seen Johnny Bench was on it, and yet you suggest there is not even 1 great catcher, yet the war adds and subtracts points based on position....that is reason for me by itself to suggest WAR needs "tweaking".

Well you've seen my Top 50 list and Johnny Bench is not on it. Neither Bench, nor any catcher thusfar in the history of the game, has been able to assemble a span of five seasons resulting in a WAR of 8.0+.

It's not an insult to someone to say "they weren't capable of winning at least five MVP awards in their prime."

It is a very exclusive list.

I actually agree with that concept...but how do they determine how much weight. They must have been drawing at straws on some of the formulas (grin).
Seriously though, I hope it considers "situational hitting"..i still haven't seen a response on that one.

They were not drawing at straws. Believe me. The mainforce behind this is now a MLB employee making six figures to now process these figures for a team. If that doesn't convince you WAR is legit, I don't know what will.

If you spent some time on the stat sites you'd see how it's pieced together. Rbat, Rbaser, Rroe, Rdp, Rfield, Rpos, Rrep. It's a big puzzle. Just having to be willing to piece it in place.

Yes, I saw both the 5 year and 10 year list...i didn't compare them very closely, but I believe if the 10 year is a true PWAR, then I would give more favoritism to that list, but besides being exclusive, it also is defunct where Gaylord is #35, and bench wouldn't make top 100.

Whatever arbitrary numbers they decided to use for positions, they blew it for catchers.
Until it can define the likes of Bench as great, it won't convince me.

You cannot just throw any player into the catching position, and expect a win.

 

[hofautos]

Let me go real slow. Step by step.

Ron Santo is the guy I'd like to most see in the HOF. He fits both the WAR 8.0+ for 5 seasons, and the WAR 5.0+ for 10 seasons criteria.

Santo's 10 best WAR seasons were.
10.2 ('67), 8.3 ('66), 7.9 ('64), 7.6 ('65), 6.1 ('69), 5.7 ('63), 5.6 ('68), 5.1 ('72), 4.2 ('70), and 2.7 ('71).

Let's check totals.
2 WAR 8.0+ season. (MVP Quality)
6 WAR 5.0+ seasons. (All-Star Quality)
2 WAR 2.0+ seasons. (Starter)

But Santo's pWAR (five year average) is 8.0, which means for his five best seasons he was MVP Quality.
For Santo's ten best seasons his average WAR is 6.3, which means for his ten best seasons he was All-Star Quality.

Don't know who tis message is for, but I can accept Santo as great. Does he land in your top 50 list? Even if top 100, i would consider him more than great...I actually consider the top 1% great...after all, that is where I place myself (grin).

 

[Guest]

I did not say that Gaylord Perry is not great, nor did I infer that. I meant by comparison. IMHO, you cannot consider GAYLORD #35 and BENCH not make the list at all. In EVERY TOP 50 LIST I have ever seen Johnny Bench was on it, and yet you suggest there is not even 1 great catcher, yet the war adds and subtracts points based on position....that is reason for me by itself to suggest WAR needs "tweaking".

Well you've seen my Top 50 list and Johnny Bench is not on it. Neither Bench, nor any catcher thusfar in the history of the game, has been able to assemble a span of five seasons resulting in a WAR of 8.0+.

It's not an insult to someone to say "they weren't capable of winning at least five MVP awards in their prime."

It is a very exclusive list.

I actually agree with that concept...but how do they determine how much weight. They must have been drawing at straws on some of the formulas (grin).
Seriously though, I hope it considers "situational hitting"..i still haven't seen a response on that one.

They were not drawing at straws. Believe me. The mainforce behind this is now a MLB employee making six figures to now process these figures for a team. If that doesn't convince you WAR is legit, I don't know what will.

If you spent some time on the stat sites you'd see how it's pieced together. Rbat, Rbaser, Rroe, Rdp, Rfield, Rpos, Rrep. It's a big puzzle. Just having to be willing to piece it in place.

Yes, I saw both the 5 year and 10 year list...i didn't compare them very closely, but I believe if the 10 year is a true PWAR, then I would give more favoritism to that list, but besides being exclusive, it also is defunct where Gaylord is #35, and bench wouldn't make top 100.

Whatever arbitrary numbers they decided to use for positions, they blew it for catchers.
Until it can define the likes of Bench as great, it won't convince me.

You cannot just throw any player into the catching position, and expect a win.

Blame Johnny Bench. Not the statisticians.

It's wrong to inflate numbers just so you can have a catcher on a Top 50 pWAR list.

And Bench's 7.2 pWAR would include him on the Top 100 list.

Joe Mauer has a chance at a pWAR of 8.0 if he can give me two more seasons like 2008-'09. And who knows what Buster Posey will end up being when it's all said and done. We're having a rebirth of catcher greatness.

I'm sending you a PM.

 

[Guest]

Let me go real slow. Step by step.

Ron Santo is the guy I'd like to most see in the HOF. He fits both the WAR 8.0+ for 5 seasons, and the WAR 5.0+ for 10 seasons criteria.

Santo's 10 best WAR seasons were.
10.2 ('67), 8.3 ('66), 7.9 ('64), 7.6 ('65), 6.1 ('69), 5.7 ('63), 5.6 ('68), 5.1 ('72), 4.2 ('70), and 2.7 ('71).

Let's check totals.
2 WAR 8.0+ season. (MVP Quality)
6 WAR 5.0+ seasons. (All-Star Quality)
2 WAR 2.0+ seasons. (Starter)

But Santo's pWAR (five year average) is 8.0, which means for his five best seasons he was MVP Quality.
For Santo's ten best seasons his average WAR is 6.3, which means for his ten best seasons he was All-Star Quality.

Don't know who tis message is for, but I can accept Santo as great. Does he land in your top 50 list? Even if top 100, i would consider him more than great...I actually consider the top 1% great...after all, that is where I place myself (grin).

Yes. Santo is in the Top 50.