Any statisticians around? Warning: Math!

[FromKoufaxtoEdwin]

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:19wjjk32]

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:19wjjk32]

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:19wjjk32]

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

Well if you believe that, then there's just no reaching you.[/quote:19wjjk32]
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:19wjjk32]


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:19wjjk32]
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.[/quote:19wjjk32]

The problem with that is that what you see with your eyes is an extremely small sample. We see highlights on tv, listen to the talking heads and form biases about players and then we really see what we want to see (case in point Derek Jeter defensively). Of course with the great players they always stand out, but how can you differentiate the defensive abilities between Matt Kemp and Grady Sizemore? One person just cannot watch every single player make every single play, which is something the numbers try to quantify. Now, I'm not as big of a proponent in WAR as the OP, mainly because of the disparity in defensive numbers, but they are better than using our own eyes in small samples. But in terms of offensive production and taking the luckk and defense out of evaluating pitching, the numbers are pretty darn advanced and accurate.

Also, i never understood why people say "Well, you can have your stats, but I'll just watch the games." Do people think that people that are into sabermetrics dont watch and love the game?Why would we care about the numbers and talk about the numbers if we didnt watch the games? The love of baseball is what got people started in dveloping these numbers, and the desire to understand it more feeds people to become involved with it. Sabers DO watch the games, but they just have a different perspective, a perspective that is being used to create the teams that you follow.

 

[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:11goq4p0]

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:11goq4p0]

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:11goq4p0]

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

Well if you believe that, then there's just no reaching you.[/quote:11goq4p0]
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:11goq4p0]


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:11goq4p0]
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.[/quote:11goq4p0]

The problem with that is that what you see with your eyes is an extremely small sample. We see highlights on tv, listen to the talking heads and form biases about players and then we really see what we want to see (case in point Derek Jeter defensively). Of course with the great players they always stand out, but how can you differentiate the defensive abilities between Matt Kemp and Grady Sizemore? One person just cannot watch every single player make every single play, which is something the numbers try to quantify. Now, I'm not as big of a proponent in WAR as the OP, mainly because of the disparity in defensive numbers, but they are better than using our own eyes in small samples. But in terms of offensive production and taking the luckk and defense out of evaluating pitching, the numbers are pretty darn advanced and accurate.

Also, i never understood why people say "Well, you can have your stats, but I'll just watch the games." Do people think that people that are into sabermetrics dont watch and love the game?Why would we care about the numbers and talk about the numbers if we didnt watch the games? The love of baseball is what got people started in dveloping these numbers, and the desire to understand it more feeds people to become involved with it. Sabers DO watch the games, but they just have a different perspective, a perspective that is being used to create the teams that you follow.[/quote:11goq4p0]
Again I agree and I love numbers as much as the next guy but I think people that use sabermetrics easily forget what they saw and just go by the numbers. Im not saying all people who use Sabermetrics but a general amount. Like in all sports player's do things that dont always show up in the numbers and although they may be little things to some its those things that dont show up in the stats that sometimes wins games and that to me is what makes a player better (Along with all the big stats). I think the point im trying to make is if I were to ask you (just an example) to tell me who the best defensive shortstop was of the 80's and you threw a bunch of numbers at me and came up with Alan Trammell and I said Ozzie Smith and my only supporting fact was all the player that played against and with Ozzie I would take the word of the player (People who accually saw him play in person) than any numbers you threw at me. Again Im not saying you think Trammell is better but just giving an example. And yes no matter what numbers are thrown if you were to ask all the old timers from the 80's who the best shortstop was back then (All numbers aside) I fell most would say Ozzie smith. Now I will agree like I said above, that when it comes to player's that dont really stand out like the Pujol's of the world, that Sabermetrics, war and any other stat shows that they were indeed pretty dang good players even though their entire career numbers dont show it. The problem is I and many other look at longivity as more of a monumental thing than a hindrance or the fact that it does not matter when indeed it does matter.

 

[FromKoufaxtoEdwin]

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:1onuyswv]

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:1onuyswv]

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:1onuyswv]

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

Well if you believe that, then there's just no reaching you.[/quote:1onuyswv]
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:1onuyswv]


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:1onuyswv]
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.[/quote:1onuyswv]

The problem with that is that what you see with your eyes is an extremely small sample. We see highlights on tv, listen to the talking heads and form biases about players and then we really see what we want to see (case in point Derek Jeter defensively). Of course with the great players they always stand out, but how can you differentiate the defensive abilities between Matt Kemp and Grady Sizemore? One person just cannot watch every single player make every single play, which is something the numbers try to quantify. Now, I'm not as big of a proponent in WAR as the OP, mainly because of the disparity in defensive numbers, but they are better than using our own eyes in small samples. But in terms of offensive production and taking the luckk and defense out of evaluating pitching, the numbers are pretty darn advanced and accurate.

Also, i never understood why people say "Well, you can have your stats, but I'll just watch the games." Do people think that people that are into sabermetrics dont watch and love the game?Why would we care about the numbers and talk about the numbers if we didnt watch the games? The love of baseball is what got people started in dveloping these numbers, and the desire to understand it more feeds people to become involved with it. Sabers DO watch the games, but they just have a different perspective, a perspective that is being used to create the teams that you follow.[/quote:1onuyswv]
Again I agree and I love numbers as much as the next guy but I think people that use sabermetrics easily forget what they saw and just go by the numbers. Im not saying all people who use Sabermetrics but a general amount. Like in all sports player's do things that dont always show up in the numbers and although they may be little things to some its those things that dont show up in the stats that sometimes wins games and that to me is what makes a player better (Along with all the big stats). I think the point im trying to make is if I were to ask you (just an example) to tell me who the best defensive shortstop was of the 80's and you threw a bunch of numbers at me and came up with Alan Trammell and I said Ozzie Smith and my only supporting fact was all the player that played against and with Ozzie I would take the word of the player (People who accually saw him play in person) than any numbers you threw at me. Again Im not saying you think Trammell is better but just giving an example. And yes no matter what numbers are thrown if you were to ask all the old timers from the 80's who the best shortstop was back then (All numbers aside) I fell most would say Ozzie smith. Now I will agree like I said above, that when it comes to player's that dont really stand out like the Pujol's of the world, that Sabermetrics, war and any other stat shows that they were indeed pretty dang good players even though their entire career numbers dont show it. The problem is I and many other look at longivity as more of a monumental thing than a hindrance or the fact that it does not matter when indeed it does matter.[/quote:1onuyswv]

Just as an answer to your example, Ozzie Smith has the best advanced defensive numbers of all-time for shortstops. But, this does come into play with someone like Roberto Alomar. He's guy that was seen as the best defensive 2nd baseman of his time and won a ton of gold gloves, but the available advanced numbers have him below average. For me, I dont really like to use advanced numbers for defense before the last few years. They are so different from system to system now that using defensive advanced numbers from before this decade as gospel doesnt sit well with me. That's why Im an advocate of using scouting and numbers, but even then you cant even just rely on scouting. Scouts and opposing players are subject to the same biases and sample size issues as fans. Players often have no clue as to why they are valuable in the game (Hello, Joe Morgan), and frankly, most professional athletes aren't the brightest people in the world. As a whole though, I do trust numbers more than someone's eyes, and i think the modern numbers bear that out.

As for the 5 year peak WAR thing, i understand what the OP is trying to do. But, there is value in longevity, and that is also borne out in advanced stats. I'm not a huge fan of historical WAR because the defensive component is so sketchy and vary so much from year to year, which is partly why using only 5 years doesnt sit too well with me. I like the idea, but longevity in baseball is hugely valuable and the OP is truly using historical WAR as the end all, be all when it really is not (and no, front offices dont just make decisions basked on WAR. Most use a combination of advanced numbers, some of which not available to the general public on something like fangraphs.)

 

[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:34lmyzvw]

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:34lmyzvw]

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:34lmyzvw]

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

Well if you believe that, then there's just no reaching you.[/quote:34lmyzvw]
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:34lmyzvw]


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:34lmyzvw]
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.[/quote:34lmyzvw]

The problem with that is that what you see with your eyes is an extremely small sample. We see highlights on tv, listen to the talking heads and form biases about players and then we really see what we want to see (case in point Derek Jeter defensively). Of course with the great players they always stand out, but how can you differentiate the defensive abilities between Matt Kemp and Grady Sizemore? One person just cannot watch every single player make every single play, which is something the numbers try to quantify. Now, I'm not as big of a proponent in WAR as the OP, mainly because of the disparity in defensive numbers, but they are better than using our own eyes in small samples. But in terms of offensive production and taking the luckk and defense out of evaluating pitching, the numbers are pretty darn advanced and accurate.

Also, i never understood why people say "Well, you can have your stats, but I'll just watch the games." Do people think that people that are into sabermetrics dont watch and love the game?Why would we care about the numbers and talk about the numbers if we didnt watch the games? The love of baseball is what got people started in dveloping these numbers, and the desire to understand it more feeds people to become involved with it. Sabers DO watch the games, but they just have a different perspective, a perspective that is being used to create the teams that you follow.[/quote:34lmyzvw]
Again I agree and I love numbers as much as the next guy but I think people that use sabermetrics easily forget what they saw and just go by the numbers. Im not saying all people who use Sabermetrics but a general amount. Like in all sports player's do things that dont always show up in the numbers and although they may be little things to some its those things that dont show up in the stats that sometimes wins games and that to me is what makes a player better (Along with all the big stats). I think the point im trying to make is if I were to ask you (just an example) to tell me who the best defensive shortstop was of the 80's and you threw a bunch of numbers at me and came up with Alan Trammell and I said Ozzie Smith and my only supporting fact was all the player that played against and with Ozzie I would take the word of the player (People who accually saw him play in person) than any numbers you threw at me. Again Im not saying you think Trammell is better but just giving an example. And yes no matter what numbers are thrown if you were to ask all the old timers from the 80's who the best shortstop was back then (All numbers aside) I fell most would say Ozzie smith. Now I will agree like I said above, that when it comes to player's that dont really stand out like the Pujol's of the world, that Sabermetrics, war and any other stat shows that they were indeed pretty dang good players even though their entire career numbers dont show it. The problem is I and many other look at longivity as more of a monumental thing than a hindrance or the fact that it does not matter when indeed it does matter.[/quote:34lmyzvw]

Just as an answer to your example, Ozzie Smith has the best advanced defensive numbers of all-time for shortstops. But, this does come into play with someone like Roberto Alomar. He's guy that was seen as the best defensive 2nd baseman of his time and won a ton of gold gloves, but the available advanced numbers have him below average. For me, I dont really like to use advanced numbers for defense before the last few years. They are so different from system to system now that using defensive advanced numbers from before this decade as gospel doesnt sit well with me. That's why Im an advocate of using scouting and numbers, but even then you cant even just rely on scouting. Scouts and opposing players are subject to the same biases and sample size issues as fans. Players often have no clue as to why they are valuable in the game (Hello, Joe Morgan), and frankly, most professional athletes aren't the brightest people in the world. As a whole though, I do trust numbers more than someone's eyes, and i think the modern numbers bear that out.

As for the 5 year peak WAR thing, i understand what the OP is trying to do. But, there is value in longevity, and that is also borne out in advanced stats. I'm not a huge fan of historical WAR because the defensive component is so sketchy and vary so much from year to year, which is partly why using only 5 years doesnt sit too well with me. I like the idea, but longevity in baseball is hugely valuable and the OP is truly using historical WAR as the end all, be all when it really is not (and no, front offices dont just make decisions basked on WAR. Most use a combination of advanced numbers, some of which not available to the general public on something like fangraphs.)[/quote:34lmyzvw]
Well Said, Im just not into digging numbers up to find out who was better within a 5 year span. Im still stuck on 3000 Hits, 500 homeruns, 3000 Strikeouts and 300 wins :lol: . One thing I notice about War is that it may show who was a better player season to season or 5 year runs but does not show who had the better careers. Take Sandy Koufax and Gaylord Perry, to me Sandy Koufax is a better Pitcher but Gaylord had the Better career (300wins and 3000 Strikeouts) aside from the Post season.

 

[Guest]

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.

As an exercise, I re-entered the information for 1901-present starting pitchers who are currently in the Hall of Fame. This time the list was generated with their seven (7) top seasons. There's no Clemens, Maddux, P. Martinez, R. Johnson, T. Glavine, etc. on the list for those reasons. You'll notice immediately that Sandy Koufax drops from 7th all the way down to 16th. For that very reason, I still continue to believe that five seasons is the true measure of a player's greatness.

The 7-year list:
WAR 8.0+ (MVP)
Johnson, Walter
Alexander, Pete
Mathewson, Christy
Grove, Lefty
Gibson, Bob
WAR 5.0+ (All-Star)
Young, Cy
Perry, Gaylord
Seaver, Tom
Walsh, Ed
Niekro, Phil
Feller, Bob
Carlton, Steve
Marichal, Juan
Roberts, Robin
Jenkins, Fergie
Koufax, Sandy
Spahn, Warren
Bunning, Jim
Vance, Dazzy
Newhouser, Hal
Willis, Vic
Blyleven, Bert
McGinnity, Joe
Palmer, Jim
Hubbell, Carl
Coveleski, Stan
Drysdale, Don
Ryan, Nolan
Waddell, Rube
Brown, Mordecai
Plank, Eddie
Gomez, Lefty
Dean, Dizzy
Wynn, Early
Sutton, Don
Faber, Red
Joss, Addie
Ruffing, Red
Chesbro, Jack
Lyons, Ted
WAR 2.0+ (Starter)
Lemon, Bob
Ford, Whitey
Grimes, Burleigh
Rixey, Eppa
Pennock, Herb
Hunter, Catfish
Bender, Chief
Hoyt, Waite
Marquard, Rube
Haines, Jesse

 

[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:2k75tljo]

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:2k75tljo]

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:2k75tljo]

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

Well if you believe that, then there's just no reaching you.[/quote:2k75tljo]
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:2k75tljo]


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:2k75tljo]
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.[/quote:2k75tljo]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

What about my formula has offended you so greatly that you feel the need to make it a personal attack against me?

No. I don't care about longevity, because I do not feel that doing something longer than someone else necessarily makes that person greater.

As for character? There is simply no way to quantify something like that.

I have no agenda to push. I merely wish to quantify a player's peak performance, to account for players like Sandy Koufax. Obviously most people feel Koufax was a great pitcher. And clearly he received a lot of hobby love. But existing stats don't justify their feelings. I sought to create a stat did, and I feel that I achieved that.

And lastly, thank you for calling my formula "fabulous." I'll be sure and put that on the back cover when my report is finished and published.

 

[bouwob]

NO MORE QUOTING

its annoying to have to scroll 4 pages just to see a post.

Can we have pudge and piazza added to the catchers list? I would like to see where they rank together and against each other.

 

[Guest]

This is the original 5-year pWAR HOF Catcher rating with I. Rodriguez and M. Piazza added for bouwob. I also added some past-HOF candidates for comparrisson: J. Torre, T. Munson, E. Howard, W. Cooper, J. Kling, B. Boone, and M. Ruel. Added in future candidates J. Posada and J. Kendall as well.

pWAR 5.0+ (All-Star)
Bench, Johnny
Piazza, Mike
Carter, Gary
Berra, Yogi
Fisk, Carlton
Rodriguez, Ivan
Torre, Joe
Campanella, Roy
Cochrane, Mickey
Munson, Thurman
Dickey, Bill
Posada, Jorge

pWAR 2.0+ (Starter)
Ewing, Buck
Bresnahan, Roger
Howard, Elston
Kendall, Jason
Hartnett, Gabby
Cooper, Walker
Lombardi, Ernie
Kling, Johnny
Boone, Bob
Schalk, Ray
Ruel, Muddy
Ferrell, Rick

 

[bouwob]

ty

both are likly hall of famers and its great to see them in the top 10.

 

[pigskincardboard]

What exactly is your formula? Is there any particular reason it's not normalized to WAR or something?

Why did you choose five years?

 

[Guest]

What exactly is your formula? Is there any particular reason it's not normalized to WAR or something?

Why did you choose five years?

I started down this journey to help focus my collection. I had always wanted a collection of "all-time greats."

First, I looked at the members of the Hall of Fame. However, I found that there were simply too many to attempt a Hall of Fame collection.

Next, like many in this thread, I began looking at career statistics. However, I found that this would exclude players like Sandy Koufax, Joe DiMaggio, and others who for varying reasons had shorter careers that prevented them from accumulating counted statistics.

I knew players like Sandy Koufax were great, but statistics had a hard time quantifying this. I focused on Koufax' remarkable, but short, career and found that he had 3 WAR 8.0+ (MVP) seasons and 2 WAR 5.0+ (All-Star) seasons. The rest was mediocre. Yet in five seasons he had made a powerful impact in the history of the game and in our hobby. My goal was clear: to put this impact into numbers.

I took every player in the Hall of Fame and cropped their careers to only show their 5 highest WAR seasons. Now in front of me I had the entire Hall of Fame, but where every player's career was of an equal length. Finally, I felt I could accurately compare them to one another, in their prime, with an equal sample source of seasons.

The next step was to generate an average WAR for these five seasons, or as I call it, p(eak)WAR.

The results that were Sandy Kouax was a top ten pitcher in his prime, weighed against other pitchers in their prime, using the same sample source. I finally had succeeded in quantifying Koufax and giving my collection a renewed focus.

 

[tribefan26]

I enjoy this thread - I think there is value to "peak" season, sustained greatness and yes even longevity. Looking at how great Koufax was at his best is pretty stunning.
I'm an actuary - I love to attach numbers to observations. A few years ago I attended an actuarial confernece where John Dewan (former actuary and founder of STATS Inc. and
Baseball Info Solutions) spoke. I was the best "work" presentation I've ever sat through.

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.

I do have a question here - does the WAR formula for defense work the same for all positions? It seems that put outs for catchers should be treated differently. For catchers aren't most put outs due to strikeouts? Could there be an argument that the Carter put out stats are driven more by the staffs he caught for and the changes in the game - more strikeouts due to freer swinging hitters and more use of relievers when he caught?

Clealry - to see Carter have more assists and fewer errors shows he was a better defensive catcher - I'm just not sure if the Put out stats should be part of the argument.

 

[Guest]

Catcher's d(efensive)WAR is effected by POs.

However, you must keep in mind that in determing dWAR Berra and Carter's stats are measured against their contemporaries. Therefore, it is "adjusted for inflation" to borrow a phrase from another medium.

In Carter's 5 best WAR seasons he posted dWARs of 2.6, 1.4, 1.3, 0.8, 0.7.
In Berra's 5 best WAR seasons he posted dWARs of 0.5, 0.4, 0.2, 0.1, -0.1.

 

[hofautos]

You'll notice immediately that Sandy Koufax drops from 7th all the way down to 16th. For that very reason, I still continue to believe that five seasons is the true measure of a player's greatness.

Based on your criteria, if someone is just "slightly better for 5 years", than someone that is dominant for 10 strong years, then that player's greatness far exceeds the others greatness, even if they were just slighlty better for 5 years, and then pooped out...I find it difficult to believe you don't see the flaw in your thinking.

 

[ChasHawk]

You'll notice immediately that Sandy Koufax drops from 7th all the way down to 16th. For that very reason, I still continue to believe that five seasons is the true measure of a player's greatness.

Based on your criteria, if someone is just "slightly better for 5 years", than someone that is dominant for 10 strong years, then that player's greatness far exceeds the others greatness, even if they were just slighlty better for 5 years, and then pooped out...I find it difficult to believe you don't see the flaw in your thinking.

people that are full of themselves and in love with their own ideas never see their flaws

 

[hofautos]

What exactly is your formula? Is there any particular reason it's not normalized to WAR or something?

Why did you choose five years?

I started down this journey to help focus my collection. I had always wanted a collection of "all-time greats."

First, I looked at the members of the Hall of Fame. However, I found that there were simply too many to attempt a Hall of Fame collection.
.

Interesting, I feel the same way, I don't want all of the HOF'ers, there are just too many. I focused my collection similarly but decided to just limit my collection to the following:

Any HOF'er with a MAJOR RECORD or "fan favorite", or "one of the best at their position"
You are probably like me in that I want to go after a logically defined collection, so that you have a goal to consider your collection complete.
It sounds like you wanted to define a logical equation that would include Koufax in your collection.
I had the same dilemma, and it seemed like no matter what formula I tried to create, none would be a logical formula that could define who I would collect until I just added in "fan favorites".

Here is an excerpt from a previous thread i started...

I am selling off almost my entire collection. as there is just too much out there, and I don't want to continue spending as much time as i have, and going to refocus my collection ONCE again (about the 5th time)...

I am going to collect ONLY players with a major record, or the best at their position (1 vintage,1 modern), and maybe 4-5 Fan Favorites

Anyway, who am i missing on my list


BEST AT THEIR POSITION
1st - Gehrig, pujols
2nd - alomar hornsby
3rd - schmidt,arod
ss - jeter, wagner
catcher - berra, bench, pudge
reliever - rivera
OF (pick 6 3 modern 3 vintage) musial,cobb,williams,mantle,griffey,mays
Pitcher (pick 6, 3 modern 3 vintage) johnson, clemens, cy, walter,maddux....still deciding


MAJOR RECORDS (not already in list above)
PETE ROSE (HITS)
HANK AARON - HR RECORD
BARRY BONDS - HR RECORD*
ICHIRO - HITS/SEASON
RICKEY - STEALS
NOLAN RYAN - STRIKEOUTS
RIPKEN 2132 CONSECUTIVE
DIMAGGIO - HIT STREAK
RUTH- SLUGGING RECORD

I never really got to a logical method of defining the players I wanted to collect, until i just added "fan favorites" not on list(s) above

If you want to include "MLB records", you can include Koufax as the youngest HOF'er

 

[ronfromfresno]

You'll notice immediately that Sandy Koufax drops from 7th all the way down to 16th. For that very reason, I still continue to believe that five seasons is the true measure of a player's greatness.

Based on your criteria, if someone is just "slightly better for 5 years", than someone that is dominant for 10 strong years, then that player's greatness far exceeds the others greatness, even if they were just slighlty better for 5 years, and then pooped out...I find it difficult to believe you don't see the flaw in your thinking.

I agree 5 years is too small a sample size. As I've stated before statistics can be made to say whatever you want them to say and in this case Chris Levy has developed a method of adjusting WAR to ensure Koufax is represented higher on the scale. Since over a 7 year span he drops, and in his opinion, Koufax is better than that he has to drop the number of years down. Not discounting the numbers, or Koufax greatness, just don't see this as a true measure of all players greatness. Too many intangibles to deal with and too many variable, like defense, can ruin the totals.

 

[Guest]

You'll notice immediately that Sandy Koufax drops from 7th all the way down to 16th. For that very reason, I still continue to believe that five seasons is the true measure of a player's greatness.

Based on your criteria, if someone is just "slightly better for 5 years", than someone that is dominant for 10 strong years, then that player's greatness far exceeds the others greatness, even if they were just slighlty better for 5 years, and then pooped out...I find it difficult to believe you don't see the flaw in your thinking.

I believe I can count the number of players who were "dominant" for ten seasons on my fingers. Keep in mind because I am already using the five highest WAR seasons of each player, adding the next five highest will only make the pWAR number decline.

From your point of view, the players whose values drop the least and showed consistency over the ten years are better than those who had a strong prime.

With pWAR's 5-year database I identified fourteen pitchers in the Hall of Fame who produced a pWAR of 8.0+ (MVP). However, just by adding an additional two years to seven total that number shrunk to only five. I have not done the math, but it's possible that only one (Walter Johnson) would survive the cut at ten years.

Is that what you honestly believe an accurate way to rate a player? I do not.

I think this perception on your part is caused by several factors.

First, I don't think you have an accurate conception of what a 'great' season (WAR 8.0+) actually is and are incorrectly assuming that many players have 10 (or more) seasons that would be reflected in a 10-year scale. This is incorrect.

Second, I think you are one of the ones who has heard that "10 good seasons" (which I interpret as WAR 5.0+) is what the HOF now looks for and has bought into it. I don't think you realize how many members of the HOF would be immediately disqualified by this standard.

Third, I think you're a product of the modern era where careers are longer, injuries are more easily overcome, and players are less prone to breaking down. In the history of the game many players had flashes of brilliance and then were injured, had careers cut short, or simply retired with dignity in an era where "career numbers" meant nothing. Rogers Hornsby retired just short of 3,000 hits. Gehrig just short of 500 home runs. They simply did not recognize such milestones in their era, and it is unfair to go back and apply those milestones to their careers in retrospect. Does Craig Biggio become a better second baseman than Rogers Hornsby just because he stuck around long enough to achieve 3,000 hits? No. Of course not. That is my number one argument against measuring a player's career.

Again. I think it would genuinely surprise you if you sat down and looked at the members of the Hall of Fame and counted the number of quality seasons each had. Very few would reach ten. In my research several failed to reach five.

 

[Guest]

What exactly is your formula? Is there any particular reason it's not normalized to WAR or something?

Why did you choose five years?

I started down this journey to help focus my collection. I had always wanted a collection of "all-time greats."

First, I looked at the members of the Hall of Fame. However, I found that there were simply too many to attempt a Hall of Fame collection.
.

Interesting, I feel the same way, I don't want all of the HOF'ers, there are just too many. I focused my collection similarly but decided to just limit my collection to the following:

Any HOF'er with a MAJOR RECORD or "fan favorite", or "one of the best at their position"
You are probably like me in that I want to go after a logically defined collection, so that you have a goal to consider your collection complete.
It sounds like you wanted to define a logical equation that would include Koufax in your collection.
I had the same dilemma, and it seemed like no matter what formula I tried to create, none would be a logical formula that could define who I would collect until I just added in "fan favorites".

Here is an excerpt from a previous thread i started...

I am selling off almost my entire collection. as there is just too much out there, and I don't want to continue spending as much time as i have, and going to refocus my collection ONCE again (about the 5th time)...

I am going to collect ONLY players with a major record, or the best at their position (1 vintage,1 modern), and maybe 4-5 Fan Favorites

Anyway, who am i missing on my list


BEST AT THEIR POSITION
1st - Gehrig, pujols
2nd - alomar hornsby
3rd - schmidt,arod
ss - jeter, wagner
catcher - berra, bench, pudge
reliever - rivera
OF (pick 6 3 modern 3 vintage) musial,cobb,williams,mantle,griffey,mays
Pitcher (pick 6, 3 modern 3 vintage) johnson, clemens, cy, walter,maddux....still deciding


MAJOR RECORDS (not already in list above)
PETE ROSE (HITS)
HANK AARON - HR RECORD
BARRY BONDS - HR RECORD*
ICHIRO - HITS/SEASON
RICKEY - STEALS
NOLAN RYAN - STRIKEOUTS
RIPKEN 2132 CONSECUTIVE
DIMAGGIO - HIT STREAK
RUTH- SLUGGING RECORD

I never really got to a logical method of defining the players I wanted to collect, until i just added "fan favorites" not on list(s) above

If you want to include "MLB records", you can include Koufax as the youngest HOF'er

First, collecting players who hold record is always troublesome, because there's always the chance someone will top them, and then you're forced to do a do-over. Also, as you have an asterik next to Barry Bonds, you've already subconsciously admitted you can't simply follow a straight line when following these records.

Second, as for "fan favorite", how do you quantify something like this? I'm sure Cap Anson was very popular in the nineteenth century. When King Kelly was bought by Boston, the city declared it a day of celebration ... but I doubt you're going to collect him, right? Or how about Nap Lajoie? When he was named player-manager of the Cleveland franchise renamed itself after him ... the Cleveland Naps, but I don't think he's making your list either. You can't quantify something like this. It's completely based on opinions, which are often ignorant, and rarely reliable.

Third, how did you decide who was the best at their position? What statistic(s) did you use to make your decision? Why are you so against WAR? Spend some time on FanGraphs, spend some time on Baseball-Reference. Play around with it. See it in action. It'll make you appreciate players in a way you never did before. It's no longer about hits, home runs ... it's about how many wins they contribute and that's what the game is about ... winning.

Using your critera (defining modern as post-1980) I'd suggest the following

pre-1980 / post-1980
C: Johnny Bench / Mike Piazza
1B: Lou Gehrig / Albert Pujols
2B: Rogers Hornsby / Ryne Sandberg
3B: Eddie Mathews / Mike Schmidt
SS: Honus Wagner / Alex Rodriguez
OF: Babe Ruth / Barry Bonds
OF: Mickey Mantle / Rickey Henderson
OF : Ty Cobb / Ken Griffey
P: Walter Johnson / Roger Clemens
P: Pete Alexander / Randy Johnson
P: Bob Gibson / Pedro Martinez