Any statisticians around? Warning: Math!

[Guest]

I would be curious how well pedro martinez faired in his best 5 seasons...i think it would amaze a few people.

Pedro Martinez (1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003)
5yA: 20 W, 6 L, 2.17 ERA, 7 CG, 2 SHO, 244 IP, 175 H, 67 R, 59 ER, 17 HR, 63 BB, 304 SO, 0.973 WHIP

wow, that's a 5 year average and with those numbers and he is still like 15th on the list of pitchers?

The difference between Pedro Martinez and the #2 ranked player (Pete Alexander) is only a single point. When you're that high on the list, we're literally talking about decimals starting to seperate players.

 

[Mudcatsfan]

I tried to think of players who shone brightly but not long enough for inclusion in the Hall.

Mattingly jumped to mind as he was an MVP caliber player for a very short period of time, but then flamed out.

Also, i wonder if Pete Rose would be on this list if not for his exlusion from the Hall.

Great work, and THANK YOU for adding some interesting topics to the board.

 

[Guest]

I tried to think of players who shone brightly but not long enough for inclusion in the Hall.

Mattingly jumped to mind as he was an MVP caliber player for a very short period of time, but then flamed out.

Also, i wonder if Pete Rose would be on this list if not for his exlusion from the Hall.

Great work, and THANK YOU for adding some interesting topics to the board.

Pete Rose was included in my research as he was a nominee for the All-Century Team. Unfortunately, he didn't quite make it. Don Mattingly was also included in my research when I entered the entire New York Yankees historical roster, and he made their All-Time Team.

 

[marhjan]

Very interesting analysis, your original post has been thanked. Is there any chance (depending on how much work it would be) of seeing separate Top 50 lists of hitters and pitchers? I think sometimes including them together complicates things, and I'd also be VERY interested in seeing where a Pete Rose, Don Mattingly type guys would be on the list. Again, I'm not sure how you have things setup, but if it's not a lot of work, I think people would be interested. Thanks again for a very thought provoking post.

 

[hofautos]

[quote="Chris Levy":c0z62x6c]

I would be curious how well pedro martinez faired in his best 5 seasons...i think it would amaze a few people.

Pedro Martinez (1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003)
5yA: 20 W, 6 L, 2.17 ERA, 7 CG, 2 SHO, 244 IP, 175 H, 67 R, 59 ER, 17 HR, 63 BB, 304 SO, 0.973 WHIP

wow, that's a 5 year average and with those numbers and he is still like 15th on the list of pitchers?

The difference between Pedro Martinez and the #2 ranked player (Pete Alexander) is only a single point. When you're that high on the list, we're literally talking about decimals starting to seperate players.[/quote:c0z62x6c]

I guess that makes my point about the importance of LONGEVITY in defining a player's "worthiness"....e.g. someone consistently great over 10 years vs someone just a little better over 5 years and then decline. LONGEVITY needs to have more weight...but again, I understand if you just want to see who was the best for a short period of time, even if it is only fractions above someone who shone strong for much longer.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

I guess that makes my point about the importance of LONGEVITY in defining a player's "worthiness"....e.g. someone consistently great over 10 years vs someone just a little better over 5 years and then decline. LONGEVITY needs to have more weight...

Yes, and as we know the Hall uses ten years. Five does make for a different, interesting discussion though.

 

[hofautos]

I guess that makes my point about the importance of LONGEVITY in defining a player's "worthiness"....e.g. someone consistently great over 10 years vs someone just a little better over 5 years and then decline. LONGEVITY needs to have more weight...

Yes, and as we know the Hall uses ten years. Five does make for a different, interesting discussion though.

Agreed...but when there is only a slight fraction of a difference between #2 ranked vs #15 ranked, IMHO there should be another factor...and it makes sense that LONGEVITY would be it.
But it does shed some light on a few players, and is indeed interesting for conversation.

 

[Guest]

Very interesting analysis, your original post has been thanked. Is there any chance (depending on how much work it would be) of seeing separate Top 50 lists of hitters and pitchers? I think sometimes including them together complicates things, and I'd also be VERY interested in seeing where a Pete Rose, Don Mattingly type guys would be on the list. Again, I'm not sure how you have things setup, but if it's not a lot of work, I think people would be interested. Thanks again for a very thought provoking post.

Unfortunately, I've only processed the members of the Hall of Fame and All-Century Team candidates. The best I can offer is a ranking of Hall of Famers by position.

Pitcher
Johnson, Walter
Alexander, Grover
Gibson, Bob
Mathewson, Christy
Grove, Lefty
Walsh, Ed
Koufax, Sandy
Young, Cy
Perry, Gaylord
Seaver, Tom
Marichal, Juan
Feller, Bob
Carlton, Steve
Roberts, Robin
McGinnity, Joe
Niekro, Phil
Jenkins, Ferguson
Bunning, Jim
Spahn, Warren
Vance, Dazzy
Newhouser, Hal
Waddell, Rube
Willis, Vic
Hubbell, Carl
Palmer, Jim
Brown, Mordecai
Coveleski, Stan
Ryan, Nolan
Drysdale, Don
Gomez, Lefty
Plank, Eddie
Dean, Dizzy
Faber, Red
Wynn, Early
Chesbro, Jack
Sutton, Don
Ruffing, Red
Lemon, Bob
Eckersly, Dennis
Joss, Addie
Hunter, Catfish
Pennock, Herb
Lyons, Ted
Grimes, Burleigh
Ford, Whitey
Ripley, Eppa
Gossage, Rich
Marquard, Rube
Bender, Chief
Hoyt, Waite
Sutter, Bruce
Haines, Jesse
Wilhelm, Hoyt
Fingers, Rollie

Catcher
Bench, Johnny
Carter, Gary
Berra, Yogi
Fisk, Carlton
Campanella, Roy
Cochrane, Mickey
Dickey, Bill
Ewing, Buck
Bresnahan, Roger
Hartnett, Gabby
Lombardi, Ernie
Schalk, Ray
Ferrell, Rick

1st Baseman
Gehrig, Lou
Musial, Stan
Foxx, Jimmie
Banks, Ernie
Brouthers, Dan
Carew, Rod
Connor, Roger
Greenberg, Hank
Mize, Johnny
Sisler, George
McCovey, Willie
Terry, Bill
Anson, Cap
Chance, Frank
Murray, Eddie
Killebrew, Harmon
Perez, Tony
Cepeda, Orlando
Beckley, Jake
Bottomley, Jim
Kelly, George

2nd Baseman
Hornsby, Rogers
Collins, Eddie
Morgan, Joe
Lajoie, Nap
Robinson, Jackie
Gehringer, Charlie
Frisch, Frankie
Sandberg, Ryne
Gordon, Joe
Herman, Billy
Fox, Nellie
Lazzeri, Tony
Doerr, Bobby
Evers, Johnny
McPhee, Bid
Schoendienst, Red
Mazeroski, Bill

3rd Baseman
Schmidt, Mike
Boggs, Wade
Brett, George
Mathews, Eddie
Baker, Frank
Robinson, Brooks
Collins, Jimmy
Molitor, Paul
Lindstrom, Freddie
Traynor, Pie
Kell, George

Shortstop
Wagner, Honus
Ripken, Cal
Jennings, Hugh
Vaughan, Arky
Yount, Robin
Boudreau, Lou
Davis, George
Cronin, Joe
Appling, Luke
Reese, Pee Wee
Smith, Ozzie
Wallace, Bobby
Bancroft, Dave
Jackson, Travis
Sewell, Joe
Rizzuto, Phil
Tinker, Joe
Aparicio, Luis
Ward, John
Maranville, Rabbit

Out Fielder
Ruth, Babe
Mantle, Mickey
Cobb, Ty
Williams, Ted
Mays, Willie
Speaker, Tris
Aaron, Hank
Henderson, Rickey
Yastrzemski, Carl
DiMaggio, Joe
Ott, Mel
Delahanty, Ed
Snider, Duke
Robinson, Frank
Jackson, Reggie
Clemente, Roberto
Kaline, Al
Heilmann, Harry
Hamilton, Billy
Kiner, Ralph
Simmons, Al
Waner, Paul
Flick, Elmer
Kelley, Joe
Burkett, Jesse
Medwick, Joe
Stargell, Willie
Keeler, Willie
Goslin, Goose
Dawson, Andre
Crawford, Sam
Clarke, Fred
Ashburn, Richie
Wilson, Hack
Doby, Larry
Williams, Billy
Cuyler, Kiki
Winfield, Dave
Averill, Earl
Klein, Chuck
Rice, Jim
Combs, Earle
Wheat, Zack
Kelly, King
Puckett, Kirby
Duffy, Hugh
Youngs, Ross
Thompson, Sam
Slaughter, Enos
Manush, Heinie
Roush, Edd
Carey, Max
Brock, Lou
Rice, Sam
Hafey, Chick
O'Rourke, Jim
Irvin, Monte
McCarthy, Tommy
Waner, Lloyd

 

[hofautos]

I just took a 2 sec look, and wow Gary Carter above Yogi Berra? Please provide analysis on that one??
No comparison using baseball reference or carerr winshares, and they both played 19 seasons.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... yo01.shtml

 

[Guest]

I guess that makes my point about the importance of LONGEVITY in defining a player's "worthiness"....e.g. someone consistently great over 10 years vs someone just a little better over 5 years and then decline. LONGEVITY needs to have more weight...

Yes, and as we know the Hall uses ten years. Five does make for a different, interesting discussion though.

Agreed...but when there is only a slight fraction of a difference between #2 ranked vs #15 ranked, IMHO there should be another factor...and it makes sense that LONGEVITY would be it.
But it does shed some light on a few players, and is indeed interesting for conversation.

The biggest qualm I've had with 'longevity' is that it is not consistent with what we have come to believe regarding certain players that are icons in the sport.

Here are some examples.
Sandy Koufax ... only five seasons of All-Star type or better
Dizzy Dean ... only four seasons of All-Star type or better
Rube Waddell ... only four seasons of All-Star type or better
Ralph Kiner ... only four seasons of All-Star type or better
Jack Chesbro ... only three seasons of All-Star type or better
Tony Lazzeri ... only three seasons of All-Star type or better
Ross Youngs ... only two seasons of All-Star type or better
Dave Bancroft ... only one season of All-Star type or better
Pie Traynor ... zero seasons of All-Star type or better
George Kelly ... zero seasons of All-Star type or better

These are all players who were regarded as 'great' in their day. I could list countless more. They are all Hall of Famers. Several were even nominees for the pretigious All-Century Team, and Koufax was even elected to the team.

Since I cannot throw these legends out of Cooperstown, all I can do is create a stat to measure their abilities in their prime.

There seems to be a consensus now among Hall of Fame voters that 10 All-Star type seasons is required for HOF induction, but that is not how it has always been. Players like Koufax and Dean especially were rewarded for a brief spurt of greatness. The purpose of this stat is to quantify that.

 

[hofautos]

I guess that makes my point about the importance of LONGEVITY in defining a player's "worthiness"....e.g. someone consistently great over 10 years vs someone just a little better over 5 years and then decline. LONGEVITY needs to have more weight...

Yes, and as we know the Hall uses ten years. Five does make for a different, interesting discussion though.

Agreed...but when there is only a slight fraction of a difference between #2 ranked vs #15 ranked, IMHO there should be another factor...and it makes sense that LONGEVITY would be it.
But it does shed some light on a few players, and is indeed interesting for conversation.

The biggest qualm I've had with 'longevity' is that it is not consistent with what we have come to believe regarding certain players that are icons in the sport.

Here are some examples.
Sandy Koufax ... only five seasons of All-Star type or better
Dizzy Dean ... only four seasons of All-Star type or better
Rube Waddell ... only four seasons of All-Star type or better
Ralph Kiner ... only four seasons of All-Star type or better
Jack Chesbro ... only three seasons of All-Star type or better
Tony Lazzeri ... only three seasons of All-Star type or better
Ross Youngs ... only two seasons of All-Star type or better
Dave Bancroft ... only one season of All-Star type or better
Pie Traynor ... zero seasons of All-Star type or better
George Kelly ... zero seasons of All-Star type or better

These are all players who were regarded as 'great' in their day. I could list countless more. They are all Hall of Famers. Several were even nominees for the pretigious All-Century Team, and Koufax was even elected to the team.

Since I cannot throw these legends out of Cooperstown, all I can do is create a stat to measure their abilities in their prime.

There seems to be a consensus now among Hall of Fame voters that 10 All-Star type seasons is required for HOF induction, but that is not how it has always been. Players like Koufax and Dean especially were rewarded for a brief spurt of greatness. The purpose of this stat is to quantify that.

So does your model "quantify" Pie Traynor and George Kelly?
Koufax I could understand because he was GREAT for 5 years...not sure how your model would quantify those with zero all star type seasons?

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

The biggest qualm I've had with 'longevity' is that it is not consistent with what we have come to believe regarding certain players that are icons in the sport.

Here are some examples.
Sandy Koufax ... only five seasons of All-Star type or better
Dizzy Dean ... only four seasons of All-Star type or better
Rube Waddell ... only four seasons of All-Star type or better
Ralph Kiner ... only four seasons of All-Star type or better
Jack Chesbro ... only three seasons of All-Star type or better
Tony Lazzeri ... only three seasons of All-Star type or better
Ross Youngs ... only two seasons of All-Star type or better
Dave Bancroft ... only one season of All-Star type or better
Pie Traynor ... zero seasons of All-Star type or better
George Kelly ... zero seasons of All-Star type or better

These are all players who were regarded as 'great' in their day. I could list countless more. They are all Hall of Famers. Several were even nominees for the pretigious All-Century Team, and Koufax was even elected to the team.

Since I cannot throw these legends out of Cooperstown, all I can do is create a stat to measure their abilities in their prime.

There seems to be a consensus now among Hall of Fame voters that 10 All-Star type seasons is required for HOF induction, but that is not how it has always been. Players like Koufax and Dean especially were rewarded for a brief spurt of greatness. The purpose of this stat is to quantify that.

What's also interesting to me is that a couple unexpected, 'lesser' or mostly unknown players didn't sneak onto your list.

 

[Guest]

I just took a 2 sec look, and wow Gary Carter above Yogi Berra? Please provide analysis on that one??
No comparison using baseball reference or carerr winshares, and they both played 19 seasons.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... yo01.shtml

Let's take a look at Carter vs. Berra. Carter's prime seasons were 1980 and 1982-85. Berra's prime seasons were 1950-52, '54, and '56.

Runs: Berra 103, Carter 83
Hits: Berra 177, Carter 167
Doubles: Carter 30, Berra 26
Triples: Berra 4, Carter 2
Home runs: Berra and Carter 29
Runs batted in: Berra 115, Carter 103
Stolen bases: Berra 3, Carter 2
Walks: Carter 68, Berra 61
Batting average: Berra .299, Carter .281
On base percentage: Berra .369, Carter .360
Slugging percentage: Carter .483, Berra .408
OPS: Carter .843, Berra .777

Pretty close. Here's where Carter pulls away.

Put outs: Carter 870, Berra 724
Assists: Carter 90, Berra 67
Errors: Carter 7, Berra 10

Sorry, Yogi, but Gary Carter smoked you defensively.

And that is why Gary Carter is ahead of Yogi Berra.

 

[hofautos]

I just took a 2 sec look, and wow Gary Carter above Yogi Berra? Please provide analysis on that one??
No comparison using baseball reference or carerr winshares, and they both played 19 seasons.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... yo01.shtml

Let's take a look at Carter vs. Berra. Carter's prime seasons were 1980 and 1982-85. Berra's prime seasons were 1950-52, '54, and '56.

Runs: Berra 103, Carter 83
Hits: Berra 177, Carter 167
Doubles: Carter 30, Berra 26
Triples: Berra 4, Carter 2
Home runs: Berra and Carter 29
Runs batted in: Berra 115, Carter 103
Stolen bases: Berra 3, Carter 2
Walks: Carter 68, Berra 61
Batting average: Berra .299, Carter .281
On base percentage: Berra .369, Carter .360
Slugging percentage: Carter .483, Berra .408
OPS: Carter .843, Berra .777

Pretty close. Here's where Carter pulls away.

Put outs: Carter 870, Berra 724
Assists: Carter 90, Berra 67
Errors: Carter 7, Berra 10

Sorry, Yogi, but Gary Carter smoked you defensively.

And that is why Gary Carter is ahead of Yogi Berra.

Who decides what weight to put on which stat? How do you explain why Yogi has a HOF monitor of 226 and Carter 135 career numbers
when they both had 19 years in? Doesn't the HOF monitor weigh both offense and defense?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leade ... itor.shtml

and also 12% more winshares too
http://books.google.com/books?id=jioUaB ... es&f=false

I guess I am just biased to winshares as my basis...i would accept yours more if it were for 10 years...i guess I just don't consider 5 years enough to be analyzed as a "career".

 

[Guest]

I just took a 2 sec look, and wow Gary Carter above Yogi Berra? Please provide analysis on that one??
No comparison using baseball reference or carerr winshares, and they both played 19 seasons.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... yo01.shtml

Let's take a look at Carter vs. Berra. Carter's prime seasons were 1980 and 1982-85. Berra's prime seasons were 1950-52, '54, and '56.

Runs: Berra 103, Carter 83
Hits: Berra 177, Carter 167
Doubles: Carter 30, Berra 26
Triples: Berra 4, Carter 2
Home runs: Berra and Carter 29
Runs batted in: Berra 115, Carter 103
Stolen bases: Berra 3, Carter 2
Walks: Carter 68, Berra 61
Batting average: Berra .299, Carter .281
On base percentage: Berra .369, Carter .360
Slugging percentage: Carter .483, Berra .408
OPS: Carter .843, Berra .777

Pretty close. Here's where Carter pulls away.

Put outs: Carter 870, Berra 724
Assists: Carter 90, Berra 67
Errors: Carter 7, Berra 10

Sorry, Yogi, but Gary Carter smoked you defensively.

And that is why Gary Carter is ahead of Yogi Berra.

Who decides what weight to put on which stat? How do you explain why Yogi has a HOF monitor of 226 and Carter 135 career numbers
when they both had 19 years in? Doesn't the HOF monitor weigh both offense and defense?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leade ... itor.shtml

and also 12% more winshares too
http://books.google.com/books?id=jioUaB ... es&f=false

I guess I am just biased to winshares as my basis...i would accept yours more if it were for 10 years...i guess I just don't consider 5 years enough to be analyzed as a "career".

The statistics you're looking at are based on an entire career. However, as games played is a variable in both of those equations, I find them unsatisfactory in using them to compare one player to another.

I keep coming back to this point. If you ask many people of a certain age who they'd give the ball to if the game was on the line, they'd all answer either Sandy Koufax or Bob Gibson. Neither has 300 wins. Neither has any particular career milestones when it comes to counted statistics. However, when they were at their best they were among the very best in the history of the game. However, when you look at career WAR, HOF monitor, etc. neither of these players rates very highly. Why? Because their shorter-than-average careers hurt them in the way those statistics are designed. As long as games played is a variable statistics like WAR, HOF monitor, et.al. are unreliable for comparitive purposes.

A ten year sample size would hurt the Koufaxes of the world. A one year sample is too small. I met in the middle with five and I'm satisfied where Koufax ranks on the list.

Here's a little more detail on how it works. Take a player's five best seasons based on total WAR. Not offensive war, total war. Collect of all their batting (or pitching) and defensitve statistics for those five years. Total said statistics. Divide 162 by the amount of games played (or divide 68 by the combined amont of games played and started when dealing witha pitcher). Multiply all statistics (other than Average statistics such as ERA, AVG, OBG, WHIP, SLG, OPS, etc.) via by the result of the previous equation. You now have a statistical average of a player's five best seasons. Using the formula for WAR ... create a new WAR for the average season you've computed. Rank the players by this new WAR. *poof* Done.

 

[P_Manning 18]

No Frank Thomas?

I remember early in his career he was putting up seasons on par with Ted Williams and Babe Ruth with his overall game. 100 walks 100 runs 100 RBIs 30 doubles OPS 1.000

 

[Guest]

No Frank Thomas?

I remember early in his career he was putting up seasons on par with Ted Williams and Babe Ruth with his overall game. 100 walks 100 runs 100 RBIs 30 doubles OPS 1.000

Frank Thomas never had a single season where his war was 8.0 or higher. All of the players on my list averaged at least five seasons of a WAR of 8.0 or higher.

 

[hofautos]

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

Let's take a look at Carter vs. Berra. Carter's prime seasons were 1980 and 1982-85. Berra's prime seasons were 1950-52, '54, and '56.

Runs: Berra 103, Carter 83
Hits: Berra 177, Carter 167
Doubles: Carter 30, Berra 26
Triples: Berra 4, Carter 2
Home runs: Berra and Carter 29
Runs batted in: Berra 115, Carter 103
Stolen bases: Berra 3, Carter 2
Walks: Carter 68, Berra 61
Batting average: Berra .299, Carter .281
On base percentage: Berra .369, Carter .360
Slugging percentage: Carter .483, Berra .408
OPS: Carter .843, Berra .777

Pretty close. Here's where Carter pulls away.

Put outs: Carter 870, Berra 724
Assists: Carter 90, Berra 67
Errors: Carter 7, Berra 10

Sorry, Yogi, but Gary Carter smoked you defensively.

And that is why Gary Carter is ahead of Yogi Berra.

Who decides what weight to put on which stat? How do you explain why Yogi has a HOF monitor of 226 and Carter 135 career numbers
when they both had 19 years in? Doesn't the HOF monitor weigh both offense and defense?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leade ... itor.shtml

and also 12% more winshares too
http://books.google.com/books?id=jioUaB ... es&f=false

I guess I am just biased to winshares as my basis...i would accept yours more if it were for 10 years...i guess I just don't consider 5 years enough to be analyzed as a "career".

The statistics you're looking at are based on an entire career. However, as games played is a variable in both of those equations, I find them unsatisfactory in using them to compare one player to another.

I keep coming back to this point. If you ask many people of a certain age who they'd give the ball to if the game was on the line, they'd all answer either Sandy Koufax or Bob Gibson. Neither has 300 wins. Neither has any particular career milestones when it comes to counted statistics. However, when they were at their best they were among the very best in the history of the game. However, when you look at career WAR, HOF monitor, etc. neither of these players rates very highly. Why? Because their shorter-than-average careers hurt them in the way those statistics are designed. As long as games played is a variable statistics like WAR, HOF monitor, et.al. are unreliable for comparitive purposes.

A ten year sample size would hurt the Koufaxes of the world. A one year sample is too small. I met in the middle with five and I'm satisfied where Koufax ranks on the list.

Here's a little more detail on how it works. Take a player's five best seasons based on total WAR. Not offensive war, total war. Collect of all their batting (or pitching) and defensitve statistics for those five years. Total said statistics. Divide 162 by the amount of games played (or divide 68 by the combined amont of games played and started when dealing witha pitcher). Multiply all statistics (other than Average statistics such as ERA, AVG, OBG, WHIP, SLG, OPS, etc.) via by the result of the previous equation. You now have a statistical average of a player's five best seasons. Using the formula for WAR ... create a new WAR for the average season you've computed. Rank the players by this new WAR. *poof* Done.[/quote:2g6h0crl]

IMHO longevity is a stat that should not be overlooked, and is also why the HOF typically won't consider players for the HOF without at least 10 years. IMHO, To look at a player for his net worth for only 5 years is missing the picture, unless your only objective is to find out who has better stats for 5 years. You may as well limit your objective to find out who had the best "one year". Without longevity as a consideration of greatness, the formula is meaningless. I would give your objective a lot more credibility if you used a player's 10 best years as a judge of defining a players greatness...5 years does not consider longevity, and is not credible.

 

[Guest]

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

Let's take a look at Carter vs. Berra. Carter's prime seasons were 1980 and 1982-85. Berra's prime seasons were 1950-52, '54, and '56.

Runs: Berra 103, Carter 83
Hits: Berra 177, Carter 167
Doubles: Carter 30, Berra 26
Triples: Berra 4, Carter 2
Home runs: Berra and Carter 29
Runs batted in: Berra 115, Carter 103
Stolen bases: Berra 3, Carter 2
Walks: Carter 68, Berra 61
Batting average: Berra .299, Carter .281
On base percentage: Berra .369, Carter .360
Slugging percentage: Carter .483, Berra .408
OPS: Carter .843, Berra .777

Pretty close. Here's where Carter pulls away.

Put outs: Carter 870, Berra 724
Assists: Carter 90, Berra 67
Errors: Carter 7, Berra 10

Sorry, Yogi, but Gary Carter smoked you defensively.

And that is why Gary Carter is ahead of Yogi Berra.

Who decides what weight to put on which stat? How do you explain why Yogi has a HOF monitor of 226 and Carter 135 career numbers
when they both had 19 years in? Doesn't the HOF monitor weigh both offense and defense?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leade ... itor.shtml

and also 12% more winshares too
http://books.google.com/books?id=jioUaB ... es&f=false

I guess I am just biased to winshares as my basis...i would accept yours more if it were for 10 years...i guess I just don't consider 5 years enough to be analyzed as a "career".

The statistics you're looking at are based on an entire career. However, as games played is a variable in both of those equations, I find them unsatisfactory in using them to compare one player to another.

I keep coming back to this point. If you ask many people of a certain age who they'd give the ball to if the game was on the line, they'd all answer either Sandy Koufax or Bob Gibson. Neither has 300 wins. Neither has any particular career milestones when it comes to counted statistics. However, when they were at their best they were among the very best in the history of the game. However, when you look at career WAR, HOF monitor, etc. neither of these players rates very highly. Why? Because their shorter-than-average careers hurt them in the way those statistics are designed. As long as games played is a variable statistics like WAR, HOF monitor, et.al. are unreliable for comparitive purposes.

A ten year sample size would hurt the Koufaxes of the world. A one year sample is too small. I met in the middle with five and I'm satisfied where Koufax ranks on the list.

Here's a little more detail on how it works. Take a player's five best seasons based on total WAR. Not offensive war, total war. Collect of all their batting (or pitching) and defensitve statistics for those five years. Total said statistics. Divide 162 by the amount of games played (or divide 68 by the combined amont of games played and started when dealing witha pitcher). Multiply all statistics (other than Average statistics such as ERA, AVG, OBG, WHIP, SLG, OPS, etc.) via by the result of the previous equation. You now have a statistical average of a player's five best seasons. Using the formula for WAR ... create a new WAR for the average season you've computed. Rank the players by this new WAR. *poof* Done.

Where you may argue who would you want for one inning, I would argue who would you want for 10+ years. IMHO longevity is a stat that should not be overlooked, and is also why the HOF typically won't consider players for the HOF without at least 10 years. IMHO, To look at a player for his net worth for only 5 years is missing the picture.[/quote:cq0xqp0l]

I have looked at the career statistics of every Hall of Famer and star. You'd be surprised how few of them would actually but together a decent ten year run. But that's not how we remember them. We remember the young stud Mantle, not the aching knees alcoholic. We remember the quick DiMaggio, not the tired veteran. We remember Jackie Robinson's hard play at 2B, not him pushed aside for Jim Gilliam and struggling at the plate. We remember Sandy Koufax' dominance, not him coming out of the bullpen. We remember Dizzy Dean's dominance, not his post-injury struggles. This stat quantifies these men as they were at their best. In the post-integration post-war era (rookies 1950+) we've been pretty good about the "10 year" thing. But to be an all-inclusive rating system, you really have to go to 5. Spend some time on baseball-reference and fangraphs and look at the careers of some guys from the past who you think as legends. The 10 year math is rarely favorable.

 

[hofautos]

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

Let's take a look at Carter vs. Berra. Carter's prime seasons were 1980 and 1982-85. Berra's prime seasons were 1950-52, '54, and '56.

Runs: Berra 103, Carter 83
Hits: Berra 177, Carter 167
Doubles: Carter 30, Berra 26
Triples: Berra 4, Carter 2
Home runs: Berra and Carter 29
Runs batted in: Berra 115, Carter 103
Stolen bases: Berra 3, Carter 2
Walks: Carter 68, Berra 61
Batting average: Berra .299, Carter .281
On base percentage: Berra .369, Carter .360
Slugging percentage: Carter .483, Berra .408
OPS: Carter .843, Berra .777

Pretty close. Here's where Carter pulls away.

Put outs: Carter 870, Berra 724
Assists: Carter 90, Berra 67
Errors: Carter 7, Berra 10

Sorry, Yogi, but Gary Carter smoked you defensively.

And that is why Gary Carter is ahead of Yogi Berra.

Who decides what weight to put on which stat? How do you explain why Yogi has a HOF monitor of 226 and Carter 135 career numbers
when they both had 19 years in? Doesn't the HOF monitor weigh both offense and defense?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leade ... itor.shtml

and also 12% more winshares too
http://books.google.com/books?id=jioUaB ... es&f=false

I guess I am just biased to winshares as my basis...i would accept yours more if it were for 10 years...i guess I just don't consider 5 years enough to be analyzed as a "career".

The statistics you're looking at are based on an entire career. However, as games played is a variable in both of those equations, I find them unsatisfactory in using them to compare one player to another.

I keep coming back to this point. If you ask many people of a certain age who they'd give the ball to if the game was on the line, they'd all answer either Sandy Koufax or Bob Gibson. Neither has 300 wins. Neither has any particular career milestones when it comes to counted statistics. However, when they were at their best they were among the very best in the history of the game. However, when you look at career WAR, HOF monitor, etc. neither of these players rates very highly. Why? Because their shorter-than-average careers hurt them in the way those statistics are designed. As long as games played is a variable statistics like WAR, HOF monitor, et.al. are unreliable for comparitive purposes.

A ten year sample size would hurt the Koufaxes of the world. A one year sample is too small. I met in the middle with five and I'm satisfied where Koufax ranks on the list.

Here's a little more detail on how it works. Take a player's five best seasons based on total WAR. Not offensive war, total war. Collect of all their batting (or pitching) and defensitve statistics for those five years. Total said statistics. Divide 162 by the amount of games played (or divide 68 by the combined amont of games played and started when dealing witha pitcher). Multiply all statistics (other than Average statistics such as ERA, AVG, OBG, WHIP, SLG, OPS, etc.) via by the result of the previous equation. You now have a statistical average of a player's five best seasons. Using the formula for WAR ... create a new WAR for the average season you've computed. Rank the players by this new WAR. *poof* Done.[/quote]

Where you may argue who would you want for one inning, I would argue who would you want for 10+ years. IMHO longevity is a stat that should not be overlooked, and is also why the HOF typically won't consider players for the HOF without at least 10 years. IMHO, To look at a player for his net worth for only 5 years is missing the picture.[/quote:17qwpiew]

I have looked at the career statistics of every Hall of Famer and star. You'd be surprised how few of them would actually but together a decent ten year run. But that's not how we remember them. We remember the young stud Mantle, not the aching knees alcoholic. We remember the quick DiMaggio, not the tired veteran. We remember Jackie Robinson's hard play at 2B, not him pushed aside for Jim Gilliam and struggling at the plate. We remember Sandy Koufax' dominance, not him coming out of the bullpen. We remember Dizzy Dean's dominance, not his post-injury struggles. This stat quantifies these men as they were at their best. In the post-integration post-war era (rookies 1950+) we've been pretty good about the "10 year" thing. But to be an all-inclusive rating system, you really have to go to 5. Spend some time on baseball-reference and fangraphs and look at the careers of some guys from the past who you think as legends. The 10 year math is rarely favorable.[/quote:17qwpiew]

I agree to disagree..."to be an-inclusive" rating system, IMHO you need longevity.
Most of those individuals you suggest are the best using a 5 year formula will still make top 20 all time using career numbers, and if they don't they are where they should be due to lack of longevity numbers.

You may "really have to go to 5", but I and most others won't....Longevity is a stat that shouldn't be overlooked.
To suggest Carter is "greater" than Yogi because his 5 year numbers have better defense is not "all-inclusive".