Any statisticians around? Warning: Math!

[elmalo]

What I like about this, and WAR in general, is that it shows how Mickey Mantle at his peak was a better player than Willie Mays.

correction...it doesn't show he was a better player, it shows he had a higher pWar, which is subjective to how one defines "better"....he certainly was never a better 5 tool player.

He was more valuable of a player, and did you ever see him play CF? Did you ever see him throw or run? A lot of people forget he was one of the fastest players in baseball, even after the knee injury in his rookie season.

 

[hofautos]

What statistical evidence can you offer that Bench was within the Top 50 to ever play major league baseball? l

Using my logic, there are 10 positions, so in any top 50 list there should be AT LEAST 1 of every position in any top 50 list, and few would dispute that he is the best catcher of all time, and those that would, would at least concede he was 2nd.

To me catcher is one of the most important positions in the game, and in defining greatness, catcher should carry more weight than any other position.
Pitchers only pitch every 5 games, otherwise they would be the most important. There isn't a position that is more important than pitcher IMHO, where some may suggest SS. Perhaps defense is more important in other positions, but when you figure the Catcher "calls" the game, his position is almost as important as the pitcher, but since a pitcher only pitches every 5 games or so...He also handles the ball more than any other position. He has to crouch and wear comparitively uncomfortable gear that he has to put on and take off during the game. Batters swing bats about his head, and they take fast ball off bats, bad pitches, bad hop in dirt more than any other position. Who would want the catchers position. Who appreciates it. Their careers are often short lived than other positions....

Anyway, to not name a great catcher in a top 50 list is a crime punishable by the baseball gods. Every Top list I have ever seen, always shows Bench easily in the top 50.

Maybe catchers don't have the best offensive numbers, but how do you assign an arbitrary value to such an important position in defining one's greatness.

THANKS FOR THE pwar list! I will see if it will work for me.

Its a list of the 50 greatest. Position has nothing to do with it.

THen why does pWar modify ratings for different positions, and how does one say a pitcher is greater than a hitter? Whatever, i am not going here with you...Chevy is much more talented and fun (grin).

 

[elmalo]

What I like about this, and WAR in general, is that it shows how Mickey Mantle at his peak was a better player than Willie Mays.

No one was ever better than Mays, equal but not better Mays lost two years to the war and played at Candlestick which was an open stadium until the late '70's. You might ask why would it matter that Mays played at Candlestick? Well before they enclosed the stadium the wind blew in constantly from left, Mays is a right hander, in order to hit his HR he'd have to hit them out to right or power them through the wind. If he played in another home park and had his two years in his prime back we'd be talking about Mays as the HR king along with his speed, ability to get on base, defensive abilities and would have no question to his greatness. Mantle was tremendous and if he had never gotten injured he might have approached Mays numbers but they were equals.

That is arbitrary. You could say the same thing about DiMaggio, both for the 3 years he lost to the war and the stadium that he played in. And you could say if Mantle didnt blow his knee out in his rookie year he would have been a much better player. The fact is that the stats show Mantle at his peak was a better player. Not a much better player, but a better one.

 

[ronfromfresno]

What I like about this, and WAR in general, is that it shows how Mickey Mantle at his peak was a better player than Willie Mays.

No one was ever better than Mays, equal but not better Mays lost two years to the war and played at Candlestick which was an open stadium until the late '70's. You might ask why would it matter that Mays played at Candlestick? Well before they enclosed the stadium the wind blew in constantly from left, Mays is a right hander, in order to hit his HR he'd have to hit them out to right or power them through the wind. If he played in another home park and had his two years in his prime back we'd be talking about Mays as the HR king along with his speed, ability to get on base, defensive abilities and would have no question to his greatness. Mantle was tremendous and if he had never gotten injured he might have approached Mays numbers but they were equals.

That is arbitrary. You could say the same thing about DiMaggio, both for the 3 years he lost to the war and the stadium that he played in. And you could say if Mantle didnt blow his knee out in his rookie year he would have been a much better player. The fact is that the stats show Mantle at his peak was a better player. Not a much better player, but a better one.

What stats? WAR shows he was better compared to the league, not Mays.

 

[elmalo]

What I like about this, and WAR in general, is that it shows how Mickey Mantle at his peak was a better player than Willie Mays.

No one was ever better than Mays, equal but not better Mays lost two years to the war and played at Candlestick which was an open stadium until the late '70's. You might ask why would it matter that Mays played at Candlestick? Well before they enclosed the stadium the wind blew in constantly from left, Mays is a right hander, in order to hit his HR he'd have to hit them out to right or power them through the wind. If he played in another home park and had his two years in his prime back we'd be talking about Mays as the HR king along with his speed, ability to get on base, defensive abilities and would have no question to his greatness. Mantle was tremendous and if he had never gotten injured he might have approached Mays numbers but they were equals.

That is arbitrary. You could say the same thing about DiMaggio, both for the 3 years he lost to the war and the stadium that he played in. And you could say if Mantle didnt blow his knee out in his rookie year he would have been a much better player. The fact is that the stats show Mantle at his peak was a better player. Not a much better player, but a better one.

What stats? WAR shows he was better compared to the league, not Mays.

Im talking about Mantle at hi peak vs Mays at his peak. If you want to say Mays had a better career than Mantle, Im not going to argue with that. But Mantle at his peak was a better player than Mays at hi peak.

 

[hofautos]

^^^ Specifically what stats are you referring to show he was a better player?

even Mantle conceded that Mays was a better ball player.
better arm, better defense, better base runner. Mantle may have been fast, but he didn't steal the bases, so mantle's speed is not one of the 5 tools in his favor.

This article suggests that Mantle may have been better in only one season, but that the stolen bases is where mays commands the #1 spot for all the seasons.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1444 ... le-vs-mays

 

[elmalo]

^^^ Specifically what stats are you referring to show he was a better player?

even Mantle conceded that Mays was a better ball player.
better arm, better defense, better base runner. Mantle may have been fast, but he didn't steal the bases.

This article suggests that Mantle may have been better in only one season, but that the stolen bases is where mays commands the #1 spot for all the seasons.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1444 ... le-vs-mays

And Mantles obp was 40 points higher.

 

[elmalo]

And when you compare there wars Mantle had better seasons than Mays. I totally agree tha Mays had a better career. Im talking about when Mantle was at his peak. And it isnt a huge difference.

 

[elmalo]

And that article says the same exact thing that I am saying.

 

[Guest]

What statistical evidence can you offer that Bench was within the Top 50 to ever play major league baseball? l

Using my logic, there are 10 positions, so in any top 50 list there should be AT LEAST 1 of every position in any top 50 list, and few would dispute that he is the best catcher of all time, and those that would, would at least concede he was 2nd.

To me catcher is one of the most important positions in the game, and in defining greatness, catcher should carry more weight than any other position.
Pitchers only pitch every 5 games, otherwise they would be the most important. There isn't a position that is more important than pitcher IMHO, where some may suggest SS. Perhaps defense is more important in other positions, but when you figure the Catcher "calls" the game, his position is almost as important as the pitcher, but since a pitcher only pitches every 5 games or so...He also handles the ball more than any other position. He has to crouch and wear comparitively uncomfortable gear that he has to put on and take off during the game. Batters swing bats about his head, and they take fast ball off bats, bad pitches, bad hop in dirt more than any other position. Who would want the catchers position. Who appreciates it. Their careers are often short lived than other positions....

Anyway, to not name a great catcher in a top 50 list is a crime punishable by the baseball gods. Every Top list I have ever seen, always shows Bench easily in the top 50.

Maybe catchers don't have the best offensive numbers, but how do you assign an arbitrary value to such an important position in defining one's greatness.

THANKS FOR THE pwar list! I will see if it will work for me.

You can't simply state that thee should be a catche on the list. If the player's performance doesn't merit inclusion, he should not be included.

Yes a catcher's career is short lived, which is why I rate a player solely based on their prime (5 seasons) against othe players in their prime. Five seasons were chosen, because it was the smallest sample size that resulted in at least fifty playes averaging a WAR of 8.0+. This is a significant milestone, selected by the developr of WAR based on the distribution of WAR of every player in the entire histoy of the game ... not chosen by me at random.

Catcher's DO receive a bonus when RAR (one of the core elements of WAR) is computed. This component is called Rpos known as Runs fom Positional Scarcity. These bonuses are available for view at Baseball-Reference.com and other sites.

Again. You shouldn't just be jumping to wild, uneducated conclusions about WAR. You are criticizing it from an uninformed position, and it addresses almost every criticism you have about it.

^^^ these must be 5 year, right? how about 10 year?
I dont see pedro martinez or randy johnson?

Also thinking about pitchers, how can so many pitchers rate so high and yet NO catchers?
If there is a seperate formula for pitching stats, or just a value added for pitchers, because catchers are better offensively than pitchers?
IMHO, if they are able to show pitchers with high pwar, then they certainly can make catchers with a high pwar?

I know you didn't invent, but just asking if you know.

I don't know how this pwar became so popular with so many deficiencies.

Of couse the formula for pitching stats is different. You have probably posted in my thread more than me, in that time have you seriously not once looked at the components of WAR on a statistical website?

And yes. pWAR is designed to measure a player's prime. So the above list is a measure of the average of the player's five prime seasons.

percentage of stealers caught?
or adding points for the position itself

excerpt HOF monitor-
For tough defensive positions, 60 for 1800 games as a catcher, 45 for 1,600 games, 30 for 1,400, and 15 for 1,200 games caught.

If you look at the HOF monitor and the formula they created it is pretty amazing that over 95% of elgible non-steroid players with a HOF monitor > 130 are actually in the HOF.

In WAR points ARE added fo the position itself. In Johnny Bench's five prime seasons he had between 6 and 9 points added each year because of his position at catcher. On top of that bonus, his defenses stats were added on top of his offensive stats as well. However, even with that bonus, his average WAR over his five best statistical seasons (aka pWAR) did not reach 8.0.

He is currently the best catcher of all-time. That is a fine accomplishment. The fact that he didn't average five seasons of an 8.0 WA is not a knock against Johnny Bench (or anyone).

And every player with a pWAR of 8.0+ is in the baseball Hall of Fame who is eligible other than Shoeless Joe Jackson (banned from baseball) and Ron Santo (who most ague should be in).

I don't think it is the pWAR stat that is the problem, i think it is the way he is using it.
I think he is using 5year PWAR 8 again. I would like to see same list with pWAR highest average using best 10 years not excluding any.

pWAR is an average of a player's 5 best WAR seasons. 5 years was chosen because that was the largest sample size that produced the desired result of 50 players.

At ten years the great player list would look like this...
12.2 Ruth, Babe
10.7 Bonds, Bary
10.1 Hornsby, Rogers
10.0 Mays, Willie
9.7 Cobb, Ty
9.6 Gehrig, Lou
9.3 Williams, Ted
9.3 Wagner, Honus
9.2 Johnson, Walter
9.1 Mantle, Mickey
8.8 Collins, Eddie
8.6 Musial, Stan
8.6 Speaker, Tris
8.4 Aaron, Hank
8.4 Pujols, Albert
8.2 Rodriguez, Alex
8.2 Schmidt, Mike
8.1 Clemens, Roger

Those are the only post-1901 players to produce an average WAR of 8.0+ over a ten year span.

THen why does pWar modify ratings for different positions, and how does one say a pitcher is greater than a hitter? Whatever, i am not going here with you...Chevy is much more talented and fun (grin).

pWAR is does not modify ratings for different positions. I do not 'adjust' or 'modify' a player's WAR in any way. What I simply do is average them over a desired span. Let me make that very clear.

Positions receive a bonus, but this occurs long before they eve get to me. This occurs in the Rpos phase, which goes into the RAR component. All of this can be followed step-by-step on Baseball-Reference.com and othe sites.

 

[Guest]

Seriously the top ten at every position includes Jason Giambi over McCovey and Cepeda? Or Sal Bando is the 10th best 3B ever or Jim Edmonds is on the list? Really if this isn't a reason to take another look at the entire formula what is? These players ranking in the top 10 shows what I was talking about, they won't and should be in the HOF but according to pWAR they are better than current HOFers.

Again. This is a measure solely of a player's prime. I think in the wake of the steroid scandal people forget just how dominant (yes, he juiced) Giambi was early in his career. Think of his days in Oakland. He was on track for a Hall of Fame career.

Giambi, Jason pWAR 7.4 - drops to 6.4 at 7 yrs - drops to 5.1 at 10 yrs
McCovey, Willie pWAR 7.0 - drops to 6.6 at 7 yrs (pulls ahead of Giambi) - drops to 5.5 at 10 yrs (ahead of Giambi)
Cepeda, Orlando pWAR 5.4 - drops to 4.8 at 7 yrs (still behind Giambi) - drops to 4.3 at 10 yrs (still behind Giambi)

In his prime Giambi was better than McCovey and Cepeda. In his prime. And that is what pWAR is designed to measure.

Now as for Sal Bando and Jim Edmonds, you've not given me anyone to compare them too. But, you'll find that their prime seasons were terrific also.

Ever sit around and have an agument over "what would have happened if DiMaggio didn't go to World War 2" or "how great Jackie Robinson would have been if he didn't have a full career" or "how Mantle would have finished if he didn't become an alcoholic"?

With the types of cards I collect and the people I associate with ... this is practically all we discuss. I am more interested in what happened fifty years ago in baseball than I am today.

pWAR is designed as a tool for researchers and historians to measure players using prime data which is available for all MLB playes. It is an attempt to purge injuries, deaths, career shortages, retirements, etc. from the statistical record in an attempt to find the player's true value at their best for comparitive purposes.

You believe a player should be measured on the whole of his career. But since before 1960 a playe's career length was varied and shortened for reasons that no longer exist, I cannot use a player's career. I must measure him by their best.

 

[Guest]

Mantle vs. Mays

Mantle's 1956 season is the greatest season of the post-WAR era. In his prime he was better than Mays in his prime.

Mantle, Mickey - pWAR 11.3 - drops to 10.2 at 7 yrs - drops to 9.1 at 10 yrs
Mays, Willie - pWAR 10.5 - drops to 10.3 at 7 yrs (pulls ahead of Mantle) - drops to 10.0 at 10 yrs

But over a longer span Mays outpaced Mantle.

 

[Anthony K.]

Bash Bash BASH!!!

I hope you didnt' include me in the group that you suggested is calling him names and bashing him. I even defended him once.
I appreciate his efforts. I like what he is doing, and I think he shed a lot of light to many. I don't agree 100% with his formula as defining one's greatness, but do feel it is a good step in the right direction. I hope Chevy feels the same way...

Please do not take this as me being sarcastic, but I would never consider any discussion involving you as arguing. Debating, but not arguing.

To answer your question, I did not include you. You have brought a solid opinion from the "other side", if you will and have stuck to your guns, but have also helped him by leading him to post other, compelling stats (like the 7 and 10 year pWAR).

 

[hofautos]

[quote="Chris Levy":1gwpdeag]

What statistical evidence can you offer that Bench was within the Top 50 to ever play major league baseball? l

Using my logic, there are 10 positions, so in any top 50 list there should be AT LEAST 1 of every position in any top 50 list, and few would dispute that he is the best catcher of all time, and those that would, would at least concede he was 2nd.

To me catcher is one of the most important positions in the game, and in defining greatness, catcher should carry more weight than any other position.
Pitchers only pitch every 5 games, otherwise they would be the most important. There isn't a position that is more important than pitcher IMHO, where some may suggest SS. Perhaps defense is more important in other positions, but when you figure the Catcher "calls" the game, his position is almost as important as the pitcher, but since a pitcher only pitches every 5 games or so...He also handles the ball more than any other position. He has to crouch and wear comparitively uncomfortable gear that he has to put on and take off during the game. Batters swing bats about his head, and they take fast ball off bats, bad pitches, bad hop in dirt more than any other position. Who would want the catchers position. Who appreciates it. Their careers are often short lived than other positions....

Anyway, to not name a great catcher in a top 50 list is a crime punishable by the baseball gods. Every Top list I have ever seen, always shows Bench easily in the top 50.

Maybe catchers don't have the best offensive numbers, but how do you assign an arbitrary value to such an important position in defining one's greatness.

THANKS FOR THE pwar list! I will see if it will work for me.

You can't simply state that thee should be a catcher on the list. If the player's performance doesn't merit inclusion, he should not be included..[/quote:1gwpdeag]

You simply don't understand what I am saying.
I am saying that pWAR is pWAR, it is not a good measurement of greatness.
Greatness is a subjective word.
There is no way to calculate, to suggest that any pitcher is GREATER than any CATCHER, because GREATNESS is SUBJECTIVE.
Don't tell me I can't say that BENCH is one of the GREATEST PLAYERS of all time. Just about EVERY sports writer will agree with ME, not you.

So you say they added points for catcher, obviously the method they used is flawed, because of it's inability to name a great catcher. Again, I ask, how was it able to identify so many "great" pitchers?! My guess is that the author found there was no magic number that they could add to catchers, without putting too many catchers too high. The author was simply not clever enough to seperate out the great catchers. HOF monitor was able to, in creating their formulas. He may be making 6 digits (yawn), but he gave up too soon.

 

[hofautos]

And that article says the same exact thing that I am saying.

I agree with you, after re-reading...thanks.

 

[hofautos]

Seriously the top ten at every position includes Jason Giambi over McCovey and Cepeda? Or Sal Bando is the 10th best 3B ever or Jim Edmonds is on the list? Really if this isn't a reason to take another look at the entire formula what is? These players ranking in the top 10 shows what I was talking about, they won't and should be in the HOF but according to pWAR they are better than current HOFers.

Again. This is a measure solely of a player's prime. I think in the wake of the steroid scandal people forget just how dominant (yes, he juiced) Giambi was early in his career. Think of his days in Oakland. He was on track for a Hall of Fame career.

Giambi, Jason pWAR 7.4 - drops to 6.4 at 7 yrs - drops to 5.1 at 10 yrs
McCovey, Willie pWAR 7.0 - drops to 6.6 at 7 yrs (pulls ahead of Giambi) - drops to 5.5 at 10 yrs (ahead of Giambi)


In his prime Giambi was better than McCovey. In his prime. And that is what pWAR is designed to measure.

which again is why a 5 year pWAR is not a defiinitive or conclusive in defining one's greatness.
I bet the author of pWAR would agree as well. He never intended that a 5 year pWAR be used to conclude one's greatness, that was only your false conclusion.
I do like pWAR the more I see it, but only when used for it's intended purposes.
it's biggest fault that I see is in it's inability to rank catchers. They had a seperate formula for pitchers, so the author should create an updated pWAR(v2) that better assesses catchers.

Then to better define greatness (which is SUBJECTIVE), a combination of 5,7,10 pWAR could be used along with bonus points for records and other characteristics that are generally accepted as a measure of one's greatness, in a similar manner as the HOF Monitor does. pWAR 5 is SIMPLY not the answer.


pWAR 5 simply measures the best 5 years with subjective weights given for offense and defense,
and that may have a decent mechanism to measure pitchers, but does not have a good mechanism to measure catchers.

 

[hofautos]

At ten years the great player list would look like this...
12.2 Ruth, Babe
10.7 Bonds, Bary
10.1 Hornsby, Rogers
10.0 Mays, Willie
9.7 Cobb, Ty
9.6 Gehrig, Lou
9.3 Williams, Ted
9.3 Wagner, Honus
9.2 Johnson, Walter
9.1 Mantle, Mickey
8.8 Collins, Eddie
8.6 Musial, Stan
8.6 Speaker, Tris
8.4 Aaron, Hank
8.4 Pujols, Albert
8.2 Rodriguez, Alex
8.2 Schmidt, Mike
8.1 Clemens, Roger

Those are the only post-1901 players to produce an average WAR of 8.0+ over a ten year span.
Do you have the ability to show the top 50 regardless if WAR is less than 8?

I want to see the best 10 year averages regardless if the average is 6 or 7.
Also, are these request easy, i don't mean to ask for a lot of your time if they are not easy for you to spit out.
If easy, i would like to see a 7 year list as well.

 

[hofautos]

pWAR is does not modify ratings for different positions. I do not 'adjust' or 'modify' a player's WAR in any way. What I simply do is average them over a desired span. Let me make that very clear.

Positions receive a bonus, but this occurs long before they eve get to me. This occurs in the Rpos phase, which goes into the RAR component. All of this can be followed step-by-step on Baseball-Reference.com and othe sites.

I never meant to suggest that YOU adjusted pWAR. I meant exactly what you state here, that the formula in creating pWAR does include some modifications dependent on players positions.

[

pWAR is an average of a player's 5 best WAR seasons. .

Before I go any further I need clarification of something. Did you create the term "pWAR" or did the author of WAR create it?

....so whenever i see pWAR, that is ONLY the best 5 year WAR,
so the "best 10 years" lists you gave are not a 10 year pWAR? they are just the best 10 year WAR.

If you created the term "pWAR", then I would simply suggest a "pWARv2" which would look similar to:

4x(best 5 years WAR) + 2x(next best 2 years WAR) + next best 3 years WAR + magic number for catchers.


PS - I agree, I have not spent any time with WAR prior to this thread. I will investigate and learn about it more, I am very interested.

 

[hofautos]

PSS, I am not alone in my thinking of WAR's flaw for catchers...

http://sportsphd.wordpress.com/2010/03/ ... -catchers/

 

[hofautos]

PSS, i just read where the p in PWAR means prime, so if you are the author of "pWAR", maybe don't create a "pWARv2", but create a "gWAR", g for greatness.

gWAR = 4x(pWAR) + 2x(next best 2 years WAR) + next best 3 years WAR + magic number for catchers.
(i personally would add bonus points for other characteristics, but i can do that in my head)

or if those numbers would take a lot of work, maybe since career war is already available, try something like this:
gWAR = 4x(pWAR) + 2x(career WAR) + magic number for catchers.