Any statisticians around? Warning: Math!

[mlbsalltimegreats]

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]

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:14gc8rdc]

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".[/quote:14gc8rdc]

I 100% agree with the Bolded. Only taking 5 years of someones best is Cheating Guys Like Bonds, Ruth, Pujols (and others) Who Clearly have more than 5 Mvp Type Season and should be in a class of their own. You have Mantle 4th and Pujols 15th when Clearly Pujols is a better player than Mantle (and this is just one example). I would Take Albert Pujols's 10 Years over Mantle's 5 best Years any day! Infact I would take Pujols 10 years over Mantle Best 10 years. I guess like most have said You keep your numbers and I will continue to watch baseball.

 

[hofautos]

and to add...your effort is not useless, it is interesting to see who has the best 5 years, but it would also be intersting to see what "no-names" will show up for the best 1 year. (but then you would need a lot more player data), but I am sure you would come up with "greats" that seldom come up when talking about great players.

If you just wanted a formula to "quantify" Koufax, task accomplished.

 

[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.

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:3ny8upvm]

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".[/quote:3ny8upvm]

I 100% agree with the Bolded. Only taking 5 years of someones best is Cheating Guys Like Bonds, Ruth, Pujols (and others) Who Clearly have more than 5 Mvp Type Season and should be in a class of their own. You have Mantle 4th and Pujols 15th when Clearly Pujols is a better player than Mantle (and this is just one example). I would Take Albert Pujols's 10 Years over Mantle's 5 best Years any day! Infact I would take Pujols 10 years over Mantle Best 10 years. I guess like most have said You keep your numbers and I will continue to watch baseball.[/quote:3ny8upvm]

Albert Pujols better than Mickey Mantle?!?!? :shock:

Well if you believe that, then there's just no reaching you.

 

[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]

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:2hwyq75w]

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".[/quote:2hwyq75w]

I guess it comes down to a simple question. How long do you believe a player is in his prime? I believe you can expect five prime seasons from every player.

Some believe it is ten, because with advanced in medicine and supplements today's athletes have imrpoved conditioning, stamina, and overcome injuries exponentially better than "old timers." It gives the perception that a player's prime is actually longer than it is.

If you make a spreadsheet and enter every HOFer, and then tally the number of +5 WAR seasons each accumulated, I think you'd be surprised how FEW make the 10 "All-Star" season threshold.

 

[Rickzcards]

I think the numbers are misleading, Koufax had 4 no-hitters including a perfect game in addition to 3 Cy Young awards. How many other pitchers ranked above him have more no-hitters? Only one, Nolan Ryan.

/end thread

 

[ChasHawk]

I think the numbers are misleading, Koufax had 4 no-hitters including a perfect game in addition to 3 Cy Young awards. How many other pitchers ranked above him have more no-hitters? Only one, Nolan Ryan.

/end thread

he doesn't like or care about achievements or character or longevity Rick.

he just wants to push his agenda and his fabulous little formula he's created.

 

[phillyfan0417]

I'm not putting this formula at the same level but i remember when OPS started to be talked about. Threads just like this began popping up talking about how numbers dont tell you everything and similar sentiments. Now, OPS/OPS+ and a few others are the way we really look at players and determine how good they actually are.


Although there are other considerations, numbers are king and there isnt a good way around that.

 

[aminors]

Barry Bonds without steroids? Probably not about to sniff any list of top xx players in history. Oh I forgot, your wonderful stat doesn't care about cheating and lying to fans of the game, being a ******, and blatantly disregarding any rules for the game for personal glory and fame.

 

[phillyfan0417]

Barry Bonds without steroids? Probably not about to sniff any list of top xx players in history. Oh I forgot, your wonderful stat doesn't care about cheating and lying to fans of the game, being a ******, and blatantly disregarding any rules for the game for personal glory and fame.

With out stats, the rest of what you said means nothing. If that wasnt the case, where can I vote for the rex hudlers and the wally backmans of the world?

 

[aminors]

Barry Bonds without steroids? Probably not about to sniff any list of top xx players in history. Oh I forgot, your wonderful stat doesn't care about cheating and lying to fans of the game, being a ******, and blatantly disregarding any rules for the game for personal glory and fame.

With out stats, the rest of what you said means nothing. If that wasnt the case, where can I vote for the rex hudlers and the wally backmans of the world?

Touche.

I hope the "second greatest player in MLB history" never makes the hall.

 

[RL24]

2 of Barry's best 5 years were before he started taking steroids... just thought I'd point that out. I still think he's a ****** nozzle, but probably a little cooler than some of the people in this thread. :|


I have never heard anybody talk about the stat "RBI per game avg." If your argument on why your player is so great is based on his RBI per game avg, you're really scraping deep down in that barrel.



The OP set out to find out who had the greatest 5 seasons. Why would he want to do 10 years when his goal was to look at the best 5 years? It's not what he set out to do. Leave it at that. If you think you should be looking at 10 years, go for it!


I was pleased with the list. Its purpose was to show how great Koufax's best 5 seasons were, and I found out that Rickey's best 5 seasons were a tiny bit better. I know that Rickey would do great in the 10 year department as well, but that's another discussion for another thread.

 

[jbhofmann]

Listen, I hate steroids as much as the next guy, but Bonds was flat out insane even before he left Pittsburgh.

 

[fonda1119]

I like the concept of the OP. People keep using the Nolan Ryan vs. Koufax example but I think a bigger issue we need to look at is Blylevan vs. Koufax. Blylevan is the ultimate compiler. He was good to very good (with one season of great) for most of his career. Would any of you 'longevity' people actually want Blylevan over Koufax? I sure as hell wouldn't.

To the OP... Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the point of your math is to determine which players had the best prime years. How come you use 5 years? It feels very arbitrary. I agree that 10 years is too long. Again it feels arbitrary (something about nice numbers I guess). But I also think that 5 years is a bit too short. I think 7 years should be used and here's why:

- We can reasonably expect the prime of a player's abilities to be sometime between the ages of 25-34. With a 7 year sample size we can then theoretically measure ages 25-31, 26-32, 27-33, or 28-34. In the great majority of cases a player's best seasons are somewhere in-between the ages of 25 and 34. There are some outliers of course (Bonds comes to mind). With this we can measure how a player performed with his prime body in comparison to other players.

- It gives some credence to the idea of longevity but doesn't reward compilers. Can that 5-year HOFer actually extend it to 7 years of greatness (one extra year on each side of his prime)? If two players have virtually the same 5-year prime stats (as the OP has demonstrated has happened) then I think it's prudent to look at the 6th and 7th years to see who could maintain their greatness for a longer period of time.

Overall, great concept. Love the work you've done.

 

[jbhofmann]

As a Reds fan I quiver in fear looking at Pujols' WAR for those 10 seasons. Great googly moogly. I'd like to see the list extended to 10 years. Just to see who the REAL cream of the crop is.

 

[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]

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:2oh6hbwn]

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".[/quote:2oh6hbwn]

I guess it comes down to a simple question. How long do you believe a player is in his prime? I believe you can expect five prime seasons from every player.

Some believe it is ten, because with advanced in medicine and supplements today's athletes have imrpoved conditioning, stamina, and overcome injuries exponentially better than "old timers." It gives the perception that a player's prime is actually longer than it is.

If you make a spreadsheet and enter every HOFer, and then tally the number of +5 WAR seasons each accumulated, I think you'd be surprised how FEW make the 10 "All-Star" season threshold.[/quote:2oh6hbwn]

I don't guess it comes down to a simple question, how long do you believe a player is in his prime at all. That would be subjective as to what is someone's prime. I SIMPLY think it comes down to weighing ALL factors, of which longevity is a MAJOR factor in defining one's greatness, and that 5 years is simply not enough in most people's eyes. Again, I see it as an interesting stat, but not as a stat that should be used to compare or weigh one's "greatness" where longevity is not a factor.

 

[hofautos]

I like the concept of the OP. People keep using the Nolan Ryan vs. Koufax example but I think a bigger issue we need to look at is Blylevan vs. Koufax. Blylevan is the ultimate compiler. He was good to very good (with one season of great) for most of his career. Would any of you 'longevity' people actually want Blylevan over Koufax? I sure as hell wouldn't.

To the OP... Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the point of your math is to determine which players had the best prime years. How come you use 5 years? It feels very arbitrary. I agree that 10 years is too long. Again it feels arbitrary (something about nice numbers I guess). But I also think that 5 years is a bit too short. I think 7 years should be used and here's why:

- We can reasonably expect the prime of a player's abilities to be sometime between the ages of 25-34. With a 7 year sample size we can then theoretically measure ages 25-31, 26-32, 27-33, or 28-34. In the great majority of cases a player's best seasons are somewhere in-between the ages of 25 and 34. There are some outliers of course (Bonds comes to mind). With this we can measure how a player performed with his prime body in comparison to other players.

- It gives some credence to the idea of longevity but doesn't reward compilers. Can that 5-year HOFer actually extend it to 7 years of greatness (one extra year on each side of his prime)? If two players have virtually the same 5-year prime stats (as the OP has demonstrated has happened) then I think it's prudent to look at the 6th and 7th years to see who could maintain their greatness for a longer period of time.

Overall, great concept. Love the work you've done.

Blyleven (120) is still WAY down the list from Koufax (227) using the HOF monitor, even considering his longevity and career numbers, so that comparison is nonsense.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leade ... itor.shtml

 

[hofautos]

If his only objective is to find not who had a great "career", but who had a "great 5 year run", the job is accomplished...but no matter how you shake a stick at it, one can not define greatness discarding all but 5 years of one's career.

I still would like to see his same results for 7 year and 10 year marks, which I believe I would be FAR more comfortable with in defining one's greatness.

 

[mlbsalltimegreats]

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]

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:dicd4yvz]

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".[/quote:dicd4yvz]

I 100% agree with the Bolded. Only taking 5 years of someones best is Cheating Guys Like Bonds, Ruth, Pujols (and others) Who Clearly have more than 5 Mvp Type Season and should be in a class of their own. You have Mantle 4th and Pujols 15th when Clearly Pujols is a better player than Mantle (and this is just one example). I would Take Albert Pujols's 10 Years over Mantle's 5 best Years any day! Infact I would take Pujols 10 years over Mantle Best 10 years. I guess like most have said You keep your numbers and I will continue to watch baseball.[/quote:dicd4yvz]

Albert Pujols better than Mickey Mantle?!?!? :shock:

Well if you believe that, then there's just no reaching you.[/quote:dicd4yvz]
Again - I guess like most have said You keep your numbers and I will continue to watch baseball.
One day you will wake up!

 

[phillyfan0417]

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.

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:16qjse9q]

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".[/quote:16qjse9q]

I 100% agree with the Bolded. Only taking 5 years of someones best is Cheating Guys Like Bonds, Ruth, Pujols (and others) Who Clearly have more than 5 Mvp Type Season and should be in a class of their own. You have Mantle 4th and Pujols 15th when Clearly Pujols is a better player than Mantle (and this is just one example). I would Take Albert Pujols's 10 Years over Mantle's 5 best Years any day! Infact I would take Pujols 10 years over Mantle Best 10 years. I guess like most have said You keep your numbers and I will continue to watch baseball.[/quote:16qjse9q]

Albert Pujols better than Mickey Mantle?!?!? :shock:

Well if you believe that, then there's just no reaching you.[/quote:16qjse9q]
Again - I guess like most have said You keep your numbers and I will continue to watch baseball.
One day you will wake up![/quote:16qjse9q]


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.

 

[mlbsalltimegreats]

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.

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:1bzwz5x2]

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".[/quote:1bzwz5x2]

I 100% agree with the Bolded. Only taking 5 years of someones best is Cheating Guys Like Bonds, Ruth, Pujols (and others) Who Clearly have more than 5 Mvp Type Season and should be in a class of their own. You have Mantle 4th and Pujols 15th when Clearly Pujols is a better player than Mantle (and this is just one example). I would Take Albert Pujols's 10 Years over Mantle's 5 best Years any day! Infact I would take Pujols 10 years over Mantle Best 10 years. I guess like most have said You keep your numbers and I will continue to watch baseball.[/quote:1bzwz5x2]

Albert Pujols better than Mickey Mantle?!?!? :shock:

Well if you believe that, then there's just no reaching you.[/quote:1bzwz5x2]
Again - I guess like most have said You keep your numbers and I will continue to watch baseball.
One day you will wake up![/quote:1bzwz5x2]


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.[/quote:1bzwz5x2]
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.