Any statisticians around? Warning: Math!

[ronfromfresno]

The problem is to you a milestone is 3,000 hits or 500 home runs for a position player. Rogers Hornsby retired with 2,930 hits. You're telling me The Rajah wouldn't have hung on half a season more to pick up 3k if it had meant something? Sisler retired with 2,812 hits at only 37. He could have gotten to 3,300 if anyone had told him it mattered.

Lou Gehrig hit 493 home runs. You're telling me that if he had hit just seven more ... seven ... a magic switch gets flipped and he becomes a "greater" player?

Do you have any idea how ridiculus these milestones truely are?

Do you know why 3,000 hits are a big deal? Roberto Clemente. He died tragically doing humanitarian work with 3,000 hits. Everyone mourned him and wanted to elevate him into the pantheon of all-time greats. So suddenly everyone went around and said "3,000 hit club, Clemente's in!!!!! yaaaaay!!!!!" That's literally how it happened.

It does nothing for me.

Like I said before the milestones were different in the past, they loved their stats pre-war as well. I mean Cobb sat out games and had opponets walked to ensure batting a title. And why do you keep using Gehrig as an example when he retired due to his illness? Plus I think Hornsby hung it up because no one wanted him anymore, not a matter of being able to hang around the game a little longer.

 

[Guest]

Well I had a talk with pigskincardboard in FCB chat, but I think I made his head explode going back and forth over this for an hour.

I did not develop WAR. I find it is an interesting tool that we have at our disposal. I also think it is the most effective tool we can use to rate a player, and therefore compare two (or more) players to one another.

Unfortunately, I do not believe career WAR can be used because career length is a variable. Is a player who had a career WAR of 90 in 18 seasons superior to a player who had a career WAR of 75 in 12 seasons? I do not believe so.

Therefore, I set about creating a sample size with which I could compare two (or more) players).

The developer of WAR states that a WAR of 8.0+ is the equivalent to an MVP season; that a WAR of 5.0+ is the equivalent of an All-Star season; that a WAR of 2.0+ is the equivalent of a typical Starter; that a WAR of 0.0+ is the equivalent of a typical replacement player.

Now I believe that X amount of WAR 8.0+ seasons are required to be 'great.'

For the purposes of this hypothesis I set X to 5.

Many of you feel 5 is too small a sample size. However, it has thusfar produced 52 players who fit the criteria. Inserting 7 and 10 for X have produced considerably less.

The prevailing thought in the modern era is that a player should have ten All-Star seasons to be worthy of the Hall of Fame. In that case, X becomes 10 and seasons become WAR 5.0+.

I'm not entirely sold on 10 WAR 5.0+ seasons, but many here do not seem to be sold on 5 WAR 8.0+ seasons either.

 

[hofautos]

I look at it this way. In certain "Olympic" sports an athlete is given a certain number of attemps, and then the lowest scores are thrown out and they are judged by their best. I like that approach. That's essentially what I've done.

This is baseball, where greatness is not measured like "certain olympic sports".
Greatness in baseball is defined by their careers, all their accomplishments during their career, and their character.
Although Gehrig was great on the field, Much of Gehrig's "greatness" is measured by his character.
I agree as others have stated, that you simply are making an "effort" to define who had a great 5 seasons of their career, nothing more.

I do believe that WAR can be used to assist in defining the best, but you can't suggest that a 5 year war accurately states who is greater than who. You certainly can't state a player with a WAR of 100 is greater than a player with a WAR of 99, especially when they are of different positions, and different eras.

If you want to say you collect players of a PWAR 8.0, you can say that, but you cannot suggest those are the greatest, and assign them in numerical order of greatness.

Is there a better way to define greatness, i believe so, and I do believe it does include WAR (or a modification of WAR), and perhaps, you may be the person that ultimately defines that formula, but 5 year WAR is not it.

The biggest problem is that "GREAT" or "BEST" are both subjective terms, and you will always get people that assign different weights to offense and defense. People can't even agree that WINS is a valuable stat for defining pitchers greatness.

If you want to collect players based on WAR (e.g. Gaylord Perry over Johnny Bench), that is great, but until your formula will pick who the great majority consider the greatest, you will have your critics.

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

 

[hofautos]

Just out of curiosity, is this based on top 10 seasons of all HOFERS or only players with 10 pWAR 5.0+ (All-Star) seasons?
e.g. if someone had 9 pWAR 5.0+ (All-Star) seasons, were they not considered?

Per request, here are the top players in terms of WAR using a 10 year sample size.

Ruth, Babe
Bonds, Barry
Hornsby, Rogers
Mays, Willie
Cobb, Ty
Gehrig, Lou
Young, Cy
Williams, Ted
Wagner, Honus
Johnson, Walter
Mantle, Mickey
Nichols, Kid
Collins, Eddie
Musial, Stan
Speaker, Tris
Aaron, Hank
Pujols, Albert
Rodriguez, Alex
Schmidt, Mike
Clemens, Roger
Clarkson, John
Mathewson, Christy
Keefe, Tim
Grove, Lefty
Morgan, Joe
Alexander, Pete
Foxx, Jimmie
Mathews, Eddie
Lajoie, Nap
Henderson, Rickey
Ott, Mel
Gibson, Bob
Johnson, Randy
Radbourn, Old Hoss
Perry, Gaylord
Seaver, Tom
Boggs, Wade
DiMaggio, Joe
Delahanty, Ed

 

[hofautos]

Well I had a talk with pigskincardboard in FCB chat, but I think I made his head explode going back and forth over this for an hour.

I did not develop WAR. I find it is an interesting tool that we have at our disposal. I also think it is the most effective tool we can use to rate a player, and therefore compare two (or more) players to one another.

Unfortunately, I do not believe career WAR can be used because career length is a variable. Is a player who had a career WAR of 90 in 18 seasons superior to a player who had a career WAR of 75 in 12 seasons? I do not believe so.

Therefore, I set about creating a sample size with which I could compare two (or more) players).

The developer of WAR states that a WAR of 8.0+ is the equivalent to an MVP season; that a WAR of 5.0+ is the equivalent of an All-Star season; that a WAR of 2.0+ is the equivalent of a typical Starter; that a WAR of 0.0+ is the equivalent of a typical replacement player.

Now I believe that X amount of WAR 8.0+ seasons are required to be 'great.'

For the purposes of this hypothesis I set X to 5.

Many of you feel 5 is too small a sample size. However, it has thusfar produced 52 players who fit the criteria. Inserting 7 and 10 for X have produced considerably less.

The prevailing thought in the modern era is that a player should have ten All-Star seasons to be worthy of the Hall of Fame. In that case, X becomes 10 and seasons become WAR 5.0+.

I'm not entirely sold on 10 WAR 5.0+ seasons, but many here do not seem to be sold on 5 WAR 8.0+ seasons either.

Thanks for explaining, it does clear some things up for me...but i understood most of what you said in the thread already, but it's nice to see here summarized.
I agree, I am not sold on either. You don't have all the data to calculate players with 4 WAR 8.0 + 7 5.0+ seasons.
I would agree you can define the best players as a combination of both, but certainly WAR has its problems with weights, especially since the formula can't even define 1 great catcher.
The ultimate formula will be a combination of more than just WAR, and I still don't think you can compare players of different positions.
Any formula that would suggest that Gaylord Perry is the 35th Greatest player ever, and Johnny Bench doesn't make top 100, is flawed.
Keep trying, and create your own formula, using WAR.

To define BEST, Maybe .8(5 year WAR) + .4(7 year WAR) + .2(10 year WAR) + bonus points awarded for different things like position (somehow you need it to define great catchers, right?)

To define GREATEST, add bonus points for things like Accomplishments and Character. (e.g., Nolan Ryan was far from one of the Best, but imho, is one of the greatest...longevity, character, and records count in my book, maybe not yours)

 

[mlbsalltimegreats]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... yo01.shtml[/url]

Again - I guess like most have said You keep your numbers and I will continue to watch baseball.
One day you will wake up!

Watching baseball and statistics when determining the greatness of a player are no way equal, statistics at the end of the day are what greatness is judged on. You can watch baseball but that alone wont help you in determining how good a player is. Not sure of who said it or the exact quote but stats are the DNA of the game.

Agreed but sometimes watching baseball give you the common sense of who's better. I dont need stat to know that Pujols is a one of kind player.

Pujols is the best player of his era, and the stats back that up. Obviously when you look at Pujols you see a great player. But, did you see Willie Mays play? Did you see Mickey Mantle play? Did you see Ted Williams play? Did you see Babe Ruth play? Did you see Ty Cobb play? No. You did not. But statisticians did ... and we have the statistical records they left behind to judge players by.

We can't simply say "well he looks great to me" because the game has out-lived us and we can't see them all together as they were. Stats and stats alone allow us to do that.

[/quote:xgvngw0x][/quote:xgvngw0x][/quote:xgvngw0x][/quote:xgvngw0x][/quote:xgvngw0x][/quote:xgvngw0x][/quote:xgvngw0x][/quote:xgvngw0x]
The Thing is I dint have to watch Ted Williams, Ruth, Cobb, Ect Ect to know they were great. There are plently of outlets to let us know how great they were and thats not even looking at numbers. If you have been around long enough you can pick out whats inflated and what isnt about a player and know who was really good. You have Pujols Higher than Mantle and practically laughed when I said I though Pujols was better than Mantle. I should be the one laughing as Pujols Destroys Mantle in Runs, Hits, Hr, Rbi, Walks, Strikouts (Has 400 less K's), Ba, Ect ect in their first 10years in the league and Pujols still has a lot of baseball left in him. If Pujols sustains his current numbers for the next 5 years (Which I think he will) he will surpass every major statistic that Mantle has in less years. I dint even need war to tell me that. Now you can argue that Mantle played in less games than Pujols his first ten years but You cant ding Pujols because Mantle was injured. One thing I can say about Mantle is as good as he was I dont think he lived up to his potiential at times but again its not Pujols or anyones elses fault that Mantle wanted to have a few drinks. Now my response to you wanst really about Pujols vs Mantle but the fact that you dont like to count milestones or Longivity when in reality it does count. Now I like that you use your formula for your own benifit or collecting needs but whether you like it or not most poeple and the people who vote who gets into the hall are always going to take milestones and longivity into account (along with other factors) when considering who was great and who belongs in the hall. They will never just all of a sudden use a 5 year window formula on whos the best or greats as that is too subjective. I have read most of the rest of this thread and it really looks like there is no saving you so good luck with you formula and collecting needs.

 

[Anthony K.]

Bash Bash BASH!!!

You're an idiot, get your agenda out of here!!!

I'm a huge dick and feel the need to belittle you because I disagree with you and have no better way to rebuttal other than name calling!!!

WAR sucks, how could you have created this and come to these "magical" numbers with such little secondary education in math?


Well, now that I got that out of my system, I just wanted to thank you for drumming up quite the interesting thread and topic. As someone who has been slow to adjust to the more advanced metrics of the game (OPS+, WAR, Uzr, etc.) I find it refreshing to have a posted explain it as thoroughly as is possible and demonstrate how it can be used (and how it is used).

I'd also like to thank you for keeping a level head throughout the whole ordeal, Chris. I have enjoyed the entire thread, even the banter with hofautos. Though it seems the same "argument" has been made for about 7 pages now, I have enjoyed the additional breakdowns you have done (7 seasons and 10 seasons) and will say I look forward to being able to go through your data when you are done and checking a few things out myself.

As for the select few who attacked him, I am kind of amazed. Especially since they come from the "greeting club" of FCB, the morning thread. After interacting with you before this thread (and many others recently) it seems I may have judged a few of you way too early. Seems like in every bunch, there's always a couple of ******** who have nothing else to do other than argue and attempt to demean people.

 

[phillyfan0417]

Although Gehrig was great on the field, Much of Gehrig's "greatness" is measured by his character

These are the types of statements that drive me absolutely bonkers. Gehrig is an all time great because of what he did on the field. Lou gehrig was a man of great character but no one would know who he was if it wasnt for the fact he excelled at the game of baseball and has the numbers to prove it. If he had the iron man record but was a .250 hitter who hit 15 homers a year we would not talk about it in the same regard.


If "much" of a mas greatness was his character, I can think of a few players no one would ever talk about.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

Just out of curiosity, is this based on top 10 seasons of all HOFERS or only players with 10 pWAR 5.0+ (All-Star) seasons?
e.g. if someone had 9 pWAR 5.0+ (All-Star) seasons, were they not considered?

Well here's the thing.

If you take a player's five best seasons and he has a pWAR of 5.7, and then you expand the data to seven years, you're adding two lesser seasons, and with ten you're adding five lesser seasons. Therefore the 7 year WAR will drop from the 5 year one, and the 10 year WAR will drop from the 7 year one. Since you're only adding lesser seasons, the number cannot increase.

The player's on that list averaged a WAR of 7.0 (or higher) over their best ten seasons.

 

[Guest]

Thanks for explaining, it does clear some things up for me...but i understood most of what you said in the thread already, but it's nice to see here summarized.
I agree, I am not sold on either. You don't have all the data to calculate players with 4 WAR 8.0 + 7 5.0+ seasons.
I would agree you can define the best players as a combination of both, but certainly WAR has its problems with weights, especially since the formula can't even define 1 great catcher.
The ultimate formula will be a combination of more than just WAR, and I still don't think you can compare players of different positions.
Any formula that would suggest that Gaylord Perry is the 35th Greatest player ever, and Johnny Bench doesn't make top 100, is flawed.
Keep trying, and create your own formula, using WAR.

To define BEST, Maybe .8(5 year WAR) + .4(7 year WAR) + .2(10 year WAR) + bonus points awarded for different things like position (somehow you need it to define great catchers, right?)

To define GREATEST, add bonus points for things like Accomplishments and Character. (e.g., Nolan Ryan was far from one of the Best, but imho, is one of the greatest...longevity, character, and records count in my book, maybe not yours)

Well, if you look at catchers, historically they have not performed on the level of other position players because of the enormous toll the position takes on their bodies.

Please tell me why you think (using statistics) Gaylord Perry is not a 'great' player.

Also, I have never published a list of Top 100 players, so you cannot say that Johnny Bench is off (or on) such list. He is not on my list of Top 50, no.

WAR is already adjusted for position. So if you take a player's stats and the only thing you change is his position, his WAR will change.

You can't define something like character. Ty Cobb may have been a murderer. Babe Ruth was a drunk who may have been involved with women we now consider "underage." Cap Anson is almost single-handedly responsible for segregation in baseball in the nineteenth century. Jackie Robinson turned his back on the game to become a "race man." Or how about all the reports we have of Willie Mays snubbing people and being a "jerk"? As for Nolan Ryan, you say he has 'character' but while he may have 'true grit' that some admire, others think qualities such as that are condemnable, not laudible.

 

[reljac]

Here's an example of why I think WAR is a very questionable statistic even on just a single season basis:

Albert Pujols
2006 WAR 8.3
plate appearances 634 BA .331 Runs 119 HRs 49 RBI 137 SB 7 Fielding% .996 Total Bases 359
Slugging% .671

2008 WAR 9.6
plate appearances 641 BA .357 Runs 100 HRs 37 RBI 116 SB 7 Fielding% .996 Total Bases 342
Slugging% .653


There are a hundreds of anomalies like this, which in my opinion debunks it's measure of greatness. In 2008 he was a better singles and doubles hitter. His real production was down, in more plate appearances he touched fewer bases, scored fewer runs, knocked in fewer players, and had fewer extra base hits.

Yet despite the decrease in production, Pujols 2008 WAR is considerably higher. That honestly makes no sense... he's 2006 season was much stronger on a stat basis. Also if you were a fan of the game you'd much prefer his 2006 hitting.


Here's a really defining stat for 2006 verse 2008 for Albert Pujols... Clutch hitting:

2006:
RISP BA .397
RISP / 2 Outs BA .435

2008
RISP BA .339
RISP / 2 Outs BA .326

Even his OBP with RISP was down in 2008, which indicates it wasn't due to walks. He was just a better clutch hitter in 2006. Yet he is rewarding more heavily by WAR for getting singles and doubles with the bases empty... That's just plain silly.

 

[Guest]

Here's an example of why I think WAR is a very questionable statistic even on just a single season basis:

Albert Pujols
2006 WAR 8.3
plate appearances 634 BA .331 Runs 119 HRs 49 RBI 137 SB 7 Fielding% .996 Total Bases 359
Slugging% .671

2008 WAR 9.6
plate appearances 641 BA .357 Runs 100 HRs 37 RBI 116 SB 7 Fielding% .996 Total Bases 342
Slugging% .653


There are a hundreds of anomalies like this, which in my opinion debunks it's measure of greatness. In 2008 he was a better singles and doubles hitter. His real production was down, in more plate appearances he touched fewer bases, scored fewer runs, knocked in fewer players, and had fewer extra base hits.

Yet despite the decrease in production, Pujols 2008 WAR is considerably higher. That honestly makes no sense... he's 2006 season was much stronger on a stat basis. Also if you were a fan of the game you'd much prefer his 2006 hitting.


Here's a really defining stat for 2006 verse 2008 for Albert Pujols... Clutch hitting:

2006:
RISP BA .397
RISP / 2 Outs BA .435

2008
RISP BA .339
RISP / 2 Outs BA .326

Even his OBP with RISP was done in 2008, which indicates it wasn't due to walks. He was just a better clutch hitter in 2006. Yet he is rewarding more heavily by WAR for getting singles and doubles with the bases empty... That's just plain silly.

WAR is re-adjusted each year, based on the performance of the entire league.

Therefore, if the same player has the same stats for three consecutive years, each year he will have a different WAR based on the performance of the rest of the league.

WAR is not a formula that says H + RBI + HR + BB = X

It measures a player's performance in these regards versus the rest of the league.

Therefore, when you have McGwire and Sosa both hitting a ton of home runs in the same seasons, it does not create the same WAR shockwave as when Ruth was hitting more home runs than the entire league.

As an example when Maris hit 61, Mantle was "close." Not a dramatic WAR. When Ruth hit 60, Gehrig was "close." Not Ruth's best WAR.

 

[reljac]

This is exactly what is wrong so often with formulas... common sense gets replaced by numbers..

One of the main reasons that Pujols 2006 has a lower WAR is because he received 4 fewer fielding points in the formula than in 2008....
2006 is one of his two gold glove years. He had the same number of errors in both season. yet he had 26 more defensive chances and logged 29 1/3 more innings in 2006 and was part of 26 more double plays.
Now because 1st baseman errors were down in the league apparently in 2006 he was punished for it in WAR.


By the same token... his 2006 and 2007 seasons he received the same WAR totals despite his offensive stats being significantly off in 2007 and having his worst finish of his career in the MVP race. This was also due to fielding. As for some reason he was awarded his highest fielding runs 25 of his career in 2007 versus 14 in 2006. In 2007 Pujols commited 2 more errors in 7 fewer defensive opportunities and logged 13 fewer double plays while exhibitting a significantly lower range factor than 2006....

Yet apparently errors must have been up in 2007 for 1st baseman... so he was rewarded significantly more for his defense in 2007 than any other year of his career despite having one of his worst defensive seasons of his career.

 

[reljac]

So we can add these problems to why the WAR calculation is questionable:

1) compares fielding percentages across positions.

2) Fielding bonus or negative based on position (yes another positional bonus buried in the defensive calculation):
Positions like C, SS, 2B receive bonuses and 1b, DH, and LF get penalized.. so the worst fielding 2B gets a bonus, but the best field 1b gets penalized for thier defense????

3) if your league (NL/AL) is deemed stronger, the player may receive a bonus in the Runs vs. Replacement Rrep portion of the formula

 

[Guest]

This is exactly what is wrong so often with formulas... common sense gets replaced by numbers..

One of the main reasons that Pujols 2006 has a lower WAR is because he received 4 fewer fielding points in the formula than in 2008....
2006 is one of his two gold glove years. He had the same number of errors in both season. yet he had 26 more defensive chances and logged 29 1/3 more innings in 2006 and was part of 26 more double plays.
Now because 1st baseman errors were down in the league apparently in 2006 he was punished for it in WAR.


By the same token... his 2006 and 2007 seasons he received the same WAR totals despite his offensive stats being significantly off in 2007 and having his worst finish of his career in the MVP race. This was also due to fielding. As for some reason he was awarded his highest fielding runs 25 of his career in 2007 versus 14 in 2006. In 2007 Pujols commited 2 more errors in 7 fewer defensive opportunities and logged 13 fewer double plays while exhibitting a significantly lower range factor than 2006....

Yet apparently errors must have been up in 2007 for 1st baseman... so he was rewarded significantly more for his defense in 2007 than any other year of his career despite having one of his worst defensive seasons of his career.

"Common sense" is not a rating. It is not something that can even be agreed upon. Since the game has started "common sense" has been used in arguments over who was the best. But the problem is elements play a part in forming "common sense" and opinions that are flawed, misguided, and innacurate.

As for where Pujols ranked in the MVP race ... an ideal world, the best player would win the MVP award each year. However, we live in a world that is far from ideal and there have been years when this did not occur. MVP voting is flawed and must be discounted.

I assure you that in regards to Albert Pujols, WAR is working as intended.

If you look at a player who posted two years such as this. These are both fictional accounts.

.300 BA, 30 HR (2000)
.330 BA, 40 HR (2005)

You would argue that in 2005 the player had the better season. However, you're only looking at one player's stats. Factor this. Again. Fictional accounts

.260, 10 HR (lg average 2000)
.295, 20 HR (lg average)

You will see that statisically the player's 2005 seasons was better for that player's career, BUT his 2000 career was more dominant in the league AND therefore worthy of a higher WAR total.

 

[ronfromfresno]

This is exactly what is wrong so often with formulas... common sense gets replaced by numbers..

One of the main reasons that Pujols 2006 has a lower WAR is because he received 4 fewer fielding points in the formula than in 2008....
2006 is one of his two gold glove years. He had the same number of errors in both season. yet he had 26 more defensive chances and logged 29 1/3 more innings in 2006 and was part of 26 more double plays.
Now because 1st baseman errors were down in the league apparently in 2006 he was punished for it in WAR.


By the same token... his 2006 and 2007 seasons he received the same WAR totals despite his offensive stats being significantly off in 2007 and having his worst finish of his career in the MVP race. This was also due to fielding. As for some reason he was awarded his highest fielding runs 25 of his career in 2007 versus 14 in 2006. In 2007 Pujols commited 2 more errors in 7 fewer defensive opportunities and logged 13 fewer double plays while exhibitting a significantly lower range factor than 2006....

Yet apparently errors must have been up in 2007 for 1st baseman... so he was rewarded significantly more for his defense in 2007 than any other year of his career despite having one of his worst defensive seasons of his career.

"Common sense" is not a rating. It is not something that can even be agreed upon. Since the game has started "common sense" has been used in arguments over who was the best. But the problem is elements play a part in forming "common sense" and opinions that are flawed, misguided, and innacurate.

As for where Pujols ranked in the MVP race ... an ideal world, the best player would win the MVP award each year. However, we live in a world that is far from ideal and there have been years when this did not occur. MVP voting is flawed and must be discounted.

I assure you that in regards to Albert Pujols, WAR is working as intended.

If you look at a player who posted two years such as this. These are both fictional accounts.

.300 BA, 30 HR (2000)
.330 BA, 40 HR (2005)

You would argue that in 2005 the player had the better season. However, you're only looking at one player's stats. Factor this. Again. Fictional accounts

.260, 10 HR (lg average 2000)
.295, 20 HR (lg average)

You will see that statisically the player's 2005 seasons was better for that player's career, BUT his 2000 career was more dominant in the league AND therefore worthy of a higher WAR total.

But even though he played better than others in the league in 2000 he produced less for his team meaning in the real world he cost his team runs, hits, and WINS compared to 2005.

What I would love to see is a break down of all players with at least 7 years in the league for a single position and see how many non-HOF players shoot up the list because they had 5 great season and 15 terrible. I'm willing to bet there are a couple out there and that casts serious doubt on using the 5 year model for greatness and points to a need to take longevity and greatness over time into account.

 

[Guest]

Here is the 5, 7, and 10 year data for the members of the Hall of Fame elected as MLB players.

Starting Pitchers
Alexander, Pete PHI 9.2 8.5 7.7
Bender, Chief PHA 4.7 4.3 3.8
Blyleven, Bert MIN 6.9 6.6 6.1
Brown, Mordecai CHC 6.9 6.0 5.2
Bunning, Jim PHI 7.5 6.8 5.9
Carlton, Steve PHI 8.1 7.3 6.5
Chesbro, Jack NYY 5.7 5.0 3.7
Clarkson, John BSN 11.9 10.3 8.0
Coveleski, Stan CLE 6.8 6.4 5.3
Dean, Dizzy STL 6.2 5.4 4.1
Drysdale, Don LAD 6.7 6.4 5.8
Faber, Red CHW 5.9 5.0 4.3
Feller, Bob CLE 8.2 7.3 6.1
Ford, Whitey NYY 5.1 4.8 4.4
Galvin, Pud BUF 9.8 8.6 6.9
Gibson, Bob STL 9.1 8.3 7.4
Gomez, Lefty NYY 6.3 5.5 4.4
Grimes, Burleigh BRO 5.2 4.7 4.0
Grove, Lefty PHA 8.8 8.4 7.8
Haines, Jesse STL 3.7 3.3 2.9
Hoyt, Waite NYY 4.6 4.3 3.9
Hubbell, Carl NYG 7.3 6.5 5.6
Hunter, Catfish OAK 5.3 4.3 3.4
Jenkins, Fergie CHC 7.7 7.1 6.2
Johnson, Walter WSH 10.6 10.1 9.2
Joss, Addie CLE 5.4 5.0 4.1
Keefe, Tim NYG 10.6 9.3 7.9
Koufax, Sandy LAD 8.6 7.1 5.4
Lemon, Bob CLE 5.5 4.9 4.2
Lyons, Ted CHW 5.2 5.0 4.6
Marichal, Juan SFG 8.3 7.3 6.0
Marquard, Rube NYG 4.8 4.1 3.3
Mathewson, C. NYG 8.8 8.4 7.9
McGinnity, Joe NYG 7.8 6.5 5.3
Newhouser, Hal DET 7.4 6.6 5.3
Nichols, Kid BSN 10.0 9.6 8.8
Niekro, Phil ATL 7.7 7.4 6.9
Palmer, Jim BAL 6.9 6.5 5.7
Pennock, Herb NYY 5.2 4.6 3.8
Perry, Gaylord SFG 8.4 7.8 7.1
Plank, Eddie PHA 6.3 6.0 5.6
Radbourn, Hoss PRO 11.0 9.2 7.1
Rixey, Eppa CIN 4.9 4.6 4.2
Roberts, Robin PHI 8.0 7.3 6.2
Ruffing, Red NYY 5.5 5.0 4.3
Rusie, Amos NYG 9.3 8.4 6.1
Ryan, Nolan CAL 6.8 6.2 5.5
Seaver, Tom NYM 8.3 7.7 7.1
Spahn, Warren MLN 7.5 7.0 6.5
Sutton, Don LAD 5.5 5.2 4.6
Vance, Dazzy BRO 7.5 6.6 5.5
Waddell, Rube PHA 7.4 6.2 5.0
Walsh, Ed CHW 8.7 7.5 5.5
Welch, Mickey NYG 8.4 7.4 6.3
Willis, Vic BSN 7.3 6.6 5.6
Wynn, Early CLE 5.9 5.3 4.5
Young, Cy CLV 10.8 10.2 9.5

Relief Pitchers
Eckersly, Dennis BOS 5.4 5.0 4.4
Fingers, Rollie OAK 3.1 2.8 2.4
Gossage, Rich NYY 4.8 4.3 3.7
Sutter, Bruce CHC 4.2 3.5 2.6
Wilhelm, Hoyt BAL 3.7 3.3 3.0

Catchers
Bench, Johnny CIN 7.2 6.5 6.0
Berra, Yogi NYY 6.0 5.5 4.9
Bresnahan, Roger NYG 4.9 4.4 3.8
Campanella, Roy BRO 5.7 4.9 3.6
Carter, Gary MON 6.8 6.5 5.8
Cochrane, Mickey PHA 5.6 5.3 4.7
Dickey, Bill NYY 5.4 5.0 4.4
Ewing, Buck NYG 4.9 4.8 4.4
Ferrell, Rick BOS 2.6 2.5 2.0
Fisk, Carlton BOS 5.9 5.3 4.8
Hartnett, Gabby CHC 4.5 4.2 3.7
Lombardi, Ernie CIN 3.8 3.5 3.1
Schalk, Ray CHW 2.9 2.7 2.3

First Basemen
Anson, Cap CHC 6.8 6.3 5.9
Banks, Ernie CHC 8.5 7.5 6.0
Beckley, Jake PIT 4.7 4.6 4.3
Bottomley, Jim STL 4.4 4.0 3.3
Brouthers, Dan BUF 8.0 7.5 6.8
Carew, Rod MIN 7.9 7.0 6.1
Cepeda, Orlando SFG 5.4 4.8 4.3
Chance, Frank CHC 6.3 5.5 4.5
Connor, Roger NYG 7.7 7.3 6.7
Foxx, Jimmie PHA 8.9 8.4 7.6
Gehrig, Lou NYY 10.5 10.2 9.6
Greenberg, Hank DET 7.3 6.9 5.6
Kelly, High Pockets NYG 3.7 3.3 2.6
Killebrew, Harmon MIN 6.1 5.6 5.1
McCovey, Willie SFG 7.0 6.6 5.5
Mize, Johnny STL 7.1 6.9 6.4
Murray, Eddie BAL 6.2 5.7 5.2
Perez, Tony CIN 5.8 5.2 4.5
Sisler, George SLB 7.1 6.5 5.2
Terry, Bill NYG 6.8 6.1 5.3

Second Basemen
Alomar, Roberto CLE 6.7 6.1 5.4
Collins, Eddie CHW 10.2 9.7 8.8
Doerr, Bobby BOS 5.4 5.0 4.3
Evers, Johnny CHC 5.4 5.0 4.2
Fox, Nellie CHW 5.6 5.1 4.3
Frisch, Frankie NYG 7.6 6.8 6.0
Gehringer, Charlie DET 8.0 7.5 6.7
Gordon, Joe NYY 6.8 6.4 5.4
Herman, Billy CHC 5.7 5.2 4.6
Hornsby, Rogers STL 11.5 10.9 10.1
Lajoie, Nap CLE 9.2 8.5 7.5
Lazzeri, Tony NYY 5.6 4.9 4.3
Mazeroski, Bill PIT 3.2 2.9 2.6
McPhee, Bid CIN 4.9 4.6 4.3
Morgan, Joe CIN 10.2 9.0 7.8
Robinson, Jackie BRO 8.7 7.7 6.3
Sandberg, Ryne CHC 7.0 6.3 5.4
Schoendienst, Red STL 4.6 4.1 3.5

Third Basemen
Baker, Home Run PHA 8.0 7.1 6.0
Boggs, Wade BOS 8.6 8.1 7.1
Brett, George KCR 8.4 7.6 6.8
Collins, Jimmy BOS 6.2 5.7 5.0
Kell, George DET 4.1 3.8 3.1
Lindstrom, Freddie NYG 4.6 3.8 2.9
Mathews, Eddie ATL 8.3 8.0 7.6
Robinson, Brooks BAL 6.7 6.1 5.5
Schmidt, Mike PHI 9.1 8.7 8.2
Traynor, Pie PIT 4.2 3.9 3.5

Shortstops
Aparicio, Luis CHW 4.7 4.4 3.9
Appling, Luke CHW 6.6 6.1 5.6
Bancroft, Dave NYG 5.7 5.2 4.4
Boudreau, Lou CLE 7.3 6.3 5.3
Cronin, Joe WSH 7.0 6.2 5.4
Davis, George NYG 7.1 6.8 6.3
Jackson, Travis NYG 5.4 5.0 4.4
Jennings, Hughie BLN 8.3 6.4 4.7
Maranville, Rabbit BSN 4.2 3.9 3.4
Reese, Pee Wee LAD 6.3 5.9 5.5
Ripken, Cal BAL 8.4 7.7 6.8
Rizzuto, Phil NYY 5.2 4.9 4.1
Sewell, Joe CLE 5.4 4.8 4.3
Smith, Ozzie STL 6.0 5.6 5.0
Tinker, Joe CHC 4.8 4.5 4.1
Vaughan, Arky PIT 8.0 7.4 6.7
Wagner, Honus PIT 10.3 9.8 9.3
Wallace, Bobby SLB 5.9 5.5 5.1
Ward, Monte NYG 4.3 3.8 3.3
Yount, Robin MIL 7.5 6.9 6.0

Left Fielders
Brock, Lou STL 4.7 4.2 3.6
Burkett, Jesse CLV 6.5 5.9 5.3
Clarke, Fred PIT 6.2 5.8 5.4
Delahanty, Ed PHI 8.1 7.7 7.1
Goslin, Goose WSH 6.4 5.9 5.1
Hafey, Chick STL 4.5 3.9 3.0
Henderson, Rickey OAK 8.7 8.1 7.4
Kelley, Joe BLN 6.6 5.8 5.0
Kiner, Ralph PIT 6.9 5.9 4.6
Manush, Heinie WSH 5.3 4.8 3.9
Medwick, Joe STL 6.4 5.7 5.1
Musial, Stan STL 9.6 9.2 8.6
O'Rourke, Jim NYG 4.2 3.9 3.5
Rice, Jim BOS 5.6 4.8 4.0
Simmons, Al PHA 6.8 6.1 5.6
Stargell, Willie PIT 6.4 5.6 4.8
Wheat, Zack BRO 5.6 5.0 4.4
Williams, Billy CHC 5.9 5.4 4.8
Williams, Ted BOS 10.9 10.4 9.3
Yastrzemski, Carl BOS 8.5 7.4 6.5

Center Fielders
Ashburn, Richie PHI 6.1 5.9 5.3
Averill, Earl CLE 5.7 5.1 4.5
Carey, Max PIT 4.8 4.5 4.1
Cobb, Ty DET 11.2 10.7 9.7
Combs, Earle NYY 5.6 5.1 4.4
DiMaggio, Joe NYY 8.4 7.8 7.1
Doby, Larry CLE 6.0 5.5 4.7
Duffy, Hugh BSN 5.5 5.2 4.4
Hamilton, Billy PHI 7.1 6.7 6.2
Mantle, Mickey NYY 11.3 10.2 9.1
Mays, Willie SFG 10.5 10.3 10.0
Puckett, Kirby MIN 5.5 5.0 4.2
Roush, Edd CIN 5.2 4.8 4.1
Snider, Duke LAD 7.9 7.1 6.0
Speaker, Tris CLE 9.6 9.2 8.6
Waner, Lloyd PIT 3.4 3.0 2.5
Wilson, Hack CHC 6.0 5.2 4.0

Right Fielders
Aaron, Hank ATL 9.0 8.8 8.4
Clemente, Roberto PIT 7.4 7.1 6.5
Crawford, Sam DET 6.3 5.9 5.5
Cuyler, Kiki CHC 5.8 5.4 4.6
Dawson, Andre MON 6.3 5.6 4.8
Flick, Elmer CLE 6.6 6.2 5.6
Heilmann, Harry DET 7.2 6.7 5.8
Jackson, Reggie OAK 7.5 6.9 6.2
Kaline, Al DET 7.3 6.9 6.4
Keeler, Willie BLN 6.4 5.8 5.2
Kelly, King CHC 5.5 5.0 4.4
Klein, Chuck PHI 5.6 4.9 3.9
McCarthy, Tommy STL 3.6 3.2 2.2
Ott, Mel NYG 8.2 7.8 7.4
Rice, Sam WSH 4.5 4.3 4.0
Robinson, Frank CIN 7.9 7.4 6.9
Ruth, Babe NYY 13.3 12.8 12.2
Slaughter, Enos STL 5.3 4.9 4.4
Thompson, Sam PHI 5.4 5.0 4.3
Waner, Paul PIT 6.8 6.4 5.8
Winfield, Dave SDP 5.8 5.4 4.7
Youngs, Ross NYG 5.5 4.9 3.6

Designated Hitters
Molitor, Paul MIL 6.2 5.9 5.4

 

[Guest]

But even though he played better than others in the league in 2000 he produced less for his team meaning in the real world he cost his team runs, hits, and WINS compared to 2005.

What I would love to see is a break down of all players with at least 7 years in the league for a single position and see how many non-HOF players shoot up the list because they had 5 great season and 15 terrible. I'm willing to bet there are a couple out there and that casts serious doubt on using the 5 year model for greatness and points to a need to take longevity and greatness over time into account.

Using my five year model I have found a total of 2 retired players outside the Hall of Fame who during that span averaged a WAR of 8.0 or higher.

Shoeless Joe Jackson. Who is inelligible for Hall of Fame induction as a result from his banishment from organized, professional play. However, most believe that he was a great player, and had he not been implicated in the 1919 World Series 'fix' he would have been enshrined in Cooperstown.

Ron Santo. Whom many believe is the Hall of Fame's greatest snub, and many argue is the strongest candidate on the current veteran's committee ballot.

As you can see, even using a sample size of five years, which you consider to be "small," only two retired players not in the Hall of Fame have been indentfied. Strong HOF arguments could be made for both players.

 

[reljac]

If you look at a player who posted two years such as this. These are both fictional accounts.

.300 BA, 30 HR (2000)
.330 BA, 40 HR (2005)

You would argue that in 2005 the player had the better season. However, you're only looking at one player's stats. Factor this. Again. Fictional accounts

.260, 10 HR (lg average 2000)
.295, 20 HR (lg average)

You will see that statisically the player's 2005 seasons was better for that player's career, BUT his 2000 career was more dominant in the league AND therefore worthy of a higher WAR total.

That's far from worthy. If there was a game scoring change or rule change that made such a difference pertinent information, then sure... but any good statistician will tell you these two events are not independant and should not be reviewed seperately.

If you really delve into the foundation of each part of the WAR formula, you will find some sketchy math at best...
Arbitrary bonuses to positions in at least two places (which are an attempt to balance something the formula is ignoring)
very subjective fielding analysis (comparing completely unrelated positions like catchers to outfielders, by looking at errors as a whole).
Defensive stats that are questionably awarded and hard to trace back to anyone's true analysis of the game


The formula would have some real merit if the creater actually took the necessary statistical steps and evaluated player accomplishments from the 'replacement side' as the average over several years. Because seasons are not independent. And if the best two players in baseball both play the same position it should not minimize their accomplishments. In fact, not all players are restricted to their listed position (AROD was a SS then 3B... certain seasons he minimized the value of SS's and later he minimized the value of 3Bs). Some players are multiple position players such as Victor Martinez, Joe Mauer, and Buster Posey. Others play both outfield and first base.... You can't just assume that positional bonuses have merit because they are in a formula... many players positions depend more on the team they play on.

That seriously brings into question how you evaluate a player like Mauer or VMart that players C, 1B, and DH.... at DH and 1B they get relatively few errors. Many players don't even play the same position for the whole game.... so how can someone that play multiple positions get a +10 bonus for def and another +10 for offense when they aren't only a catcher. Players that liason on occasion as DH get to stat pad while not taking on any defensive risk.



In statistics there is simply something called outliers.... and if several outlier events occur in the same year (for instance Sosa/McGwire) it does not indicate that the mean has moved. It is not common, but it will happen from time to time. The WAR formula assumes that each season's Mean Player is the TRUE mean player for a replacement player as opposed to using a better average consisting of multiple recent years.