eras committee candidates baseball HOF

packs · #1 11-10-2024, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But you make it sound like WAR is some irrelevant number, rather than a metric developed by experts to capture excellence that counting stats might not otherwise recognize. What's your issue with WAR? And it can't be, it must suck if it thinks Grich was great, that's circular.

WAR is a good statistic when it complements other stats. So if you have a guy like Ken Griffey Jr. who you feel was a great player and you find he also has a high WAR, it's not surprising. You could compare someone you thought was as good as Griffey and see how their WARs compare, etc. That's a useful tool and metric for like players. Or comparing two MVP candidates for the year, etc.

What WAR isn't good for, in my opinion, is overriding all other aspects of the player. Bobby Grich has a high WAR and it's used to replace all conversation about what he actually did, which was bat 266 over his career with less than 2,000 hits and a 794 OPS. All very pedestrian numbers.

He's a deep cut people like to bring up for arguments sake. If you look at his similarity scores list it tells you a lot more than WAR.

Peter_Spaeth · #2 11-10-2024, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

WAR is a good statistic when it complements other stats. So if you have a guy like Ken Griffey Jr. who you feel was a great player and you find he also has a high WAR, it's not surprising. You could compare someone you thought was as good as Griffey and see how their WARs compare, etc. That's a useful tool and metric for like players. Or comparing two MVP candidates for the year, etc.

What WAR isn't good for, in my opinion, is overriding all other aspects of the player. Bobby Grich has a high WAR and it's used to replace all conversation about what he actually did, which was bat 266 over his career with less than 2,000 hits and a 794 OPS. All very pedestrian numbers.

He's a deep cut people like to bring up for arguments sake. If you look at his similarity scores list it tells you a lot more than WAR.

I don't follow. WAR is certainly based on what he ACTUALLY DID, what else could it be based on? You are assuming only counting stats reflect what he ACTUALLY DID. Again, WAR is not sacred, and while I have read the basics I don't purport to fully understand some of its nuances, but given that it seems to do a strong job of rating players overall, and that I agree with certain basic assumptions like walks are very important if not quite as good as singles, if it rates Grich high I am not going to automatically reject that assessment. Rather, my presumption would be that the traditional evaluations missed something important.

EDIT TO ADD I certainly find it more meaningful than some of the criteria people around here throw around, like great clubhouse leader, clutch hitter (devoid of statistical support), etc.

packs · #3 11-10-2024, 01:31 PM

If WAR is based on what Grich actually did then how do you explain the disparity between him and other 266 lifetime hitters with less than 2,000 and a career OPS under 800? There are a lot of those guys. Grich might be better than them but does that make him a HOFer?

His WAR has him ranked above Sandberg. Again, I think he's probably king among his similarity scores like Toby Harrah but I don't think Grich was better than Sandberg or a HOFer.

Peter_Spaeth · #4 11-10-2024, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

If WAR is based on what Grich actually did then how do you explain the disparity between him and other 266 lifetime hitters with less than 2,000 and a career OPS under 800? There are a lot of those guys. Grich might be better than them but does that make him a HOFer?

I am not a WAR scholar, but among other things he gets credit for fielding, on base percentage, being a second baseman, and he played in an era where counting stats overall were generally lower.

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/20...second-baseman

GaryPassamonte · #5 11-10-2024, 03:22 PM

My main interest in baseball is the 19th century. I don't claim to know much about WAR, but it does seem to be unkind to players of the 19th century. How does WAR adjust for shorter seasons and a small ball style of play? Also, defensively, how are players who played before gloves were worn compared to later players who wore gloves. Walks were relatively uncommon, too. There are many other differences I could add. It just seems to me that it is virtually impossible to fairly evaluate players across eras when so many factors and strategies were different. There sure aren't many 19th century players on the top 100 WAR leader board.

Peter_Spaeth · #6 11-10-2024, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

My main interest in baseball is the 19th century. I don't claim to know much about WAR, but it does seem to be unkind to players of the 19th century. How does WAR adjust for shorter seasons and a small ball style of play? Also, defensively, how are players who played before gloves were worn compared to later players who wore gloves. Walks were relatively uncommon, too. There are many other differences I could add. It just seems to me that it is virtually impossible to fairly evaluate players across eras when so many factors and strategies were different. There sure aren't many 19th century players in the top 100 WAR leader board.

Kid Nichols ranks 4th among pitchers. Tim Keefe 15th.

G1911 · #7 11-10-2024, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

My main interest in baseball is the 19th century. I don't claim to know much about WAR, but it does seem to be unkind to players of the 19th century. How does WAR adjust for shorter seasons and a small ball style of play? Also, defensively, how are players who played before gloves were worn compared to later players who wore gloves. Walks were relatively uncommon, too. There are many other differences I could add. It just seems to me that it is virtually impossible to fairly evaluate players across eras when so many factors and strategies were different. There sure aren't many 19th century players on the top 100 WAR leader board.

WAR directly reduces the value for 19th century pitchers, because otherwise the lists would be dominated by them and their high inning counts. The shorter seasons lead to hitters having lower values of WAR naturally without the direct lowering it does to punish pitchers. Defensive values use a lot of assumptions to fill in missing datapoints, adding to the many problems.

I think WAR is useless for the 19th century, personally. 19th century baseball is pretty much 1/6 of professional baseball history, but rarely gets anywhere near 1/6 of the star credit or fame or attention, unfortunately.

Peter_Spaeth · #8 11-10-2024, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

WAR directly reduces the value for 19th century pitchers, because otherwise the lists would be dominated by them and their high inning counts. The shorter seasons lead to hitters having lower values of WAR naturally without the direct lowering it does to punish pitchers. Defensive values use a lot of assumptions to fill in missing datapoints, adding to the many problems.

I think WAR is useless for the 19th century, personally. 19th century baseball is pretty much 1/6 of professional baseball history, but rarely gets anywhere near 1/6 of the star credit or fame or attention, unfortunately.

So do you think Nichols should be ranked higher than 4th all time? If not, how do you explain (genuine) why WAR doesn't seem to punish him the way you say it punishes others?

cgjackson222 · #9 11-10-2024, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

WAR directly reduces the value for 19th century pitchers, because otherwise the lists would be dominated by them and their high inning counts. The shorter seasons lead to hitters having lower values of WAR naturally without the direct lowering it does to punish pitchers. Defensive values use a lot of assumptions to fill in missing datapoints, adding to the many problems.

I think WAR is useless for the 19th century, personally. 19th century baseball is pretty much 1/6 of professional baseball history, but rarely gets anywhere near 1/6 of the star credit or fame or attention, unfortunately.

As you know, WAR is a comparison vs. a theoretical replacement player. It doesn't compare across different eras or years.

So I am confused as to what you mean by "WAR directly reduces the value for 19th century pitchers".

Individual season WAR leaders ARE dominated by 19th century pitchers.
Just look at this list: https://www.baseball-reference.com/l...h_season.shtml

ALL of the top 28 single season WAR leaders for pitchers were from the 19th century, with exception of 4 seasons (2 by Walter Johnson, one by Cy Young, and 1 by Dwight Gooden).

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
HOF Eras committee	theshleps	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	4	07-25-2023 05:36 PM
Hall of Fame Early Baseball Committee	CardCollector	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	91	10-17-2020 02:12 PM
What does the SABR Baseball Card History and Influence Research Committee do?	DaClyde	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	12	12-23-2016 10:44 AM
What does the SABR Baseball Card History and Influence Research Committee do?	DaClyde	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	5	12-14-2016 06:54 PM
SABR reviving Baseball Card Committee	Rich Klein	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	10	12-10-2016 12:33 PM