HOF results

[packs]

Counting statistics yes, JAWS and WAR no.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Counting statistics yes, JAWS and WAR no.

Well that is a different debate, no? I thought we were talking about statistics versus observation. Whether JAWS WAR etc. are meaningful compared to more traditional stats is a whole 'nother discussion, it seems to me.

[packs]

No all I've been saying the whole time is I don't need WAR or JAWS to discuss a player I'm watching. They are only relevant to discussing players from bygone eras. So when you start using JAWS and WAR to discuss someone like Jeff Kent, they mean nothing to me because I saw him play and I know what he did (i.e. counting stats).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

No all I've been saying the whole time is I don't need WAR or JAWS to discuss a player I'm watching. They are only relevant to discussing players from bygone eras. So when you start using JAWS and WAR to discuss someone like Jeff Kent, they mean nothing to me because I saw him play and I know what he did (i.e. counting stats).

Got it. And my view is that counting stats, even aided by personal observation, don't tell you enough because to me the other metrics give a better overall context (both present and historical). So with that, I think we have had a good discussion.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Got it. And my view is that counting stats, even aided by personal observation, don't tell you enough because to me the other metrics give a better overall context (both present and historical). So with that, I think we have had a good discussion.

This debate isn't over until we decide it is!

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!!!

Tom C

[packs]

You guys have been great to debate with. I appreciate the mutual respect even in disagreement. Sometimes people just start throwing out four letter words after two posts.

[frankbmd]

I thought this was a pre-WAR forum.

I know I am.

JAWS was a movie.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well that is a different debate, no? I thought we were talking about statistics versus observation. Whether JAWS WAR etc. are meaningful compared to more traditional stats is a whole 'nother discussion, it seems to me.

Right, the issue is that stats like WAR and JAWS (which is based on WAR) is not like traditional statistics, in that they are based on someone's opinion on the weighting that goes into the formulas not to mention who knows what else. In addition, these newer stats become skewed in the age of PED users. You are comparing players to other players around the league, but if those players are using, and their stats go up, then the non-users WAR goes down in comparison.

The other thing is that WAR is trying era-adjust, so that you can compare players across the years. That is like saying, in every year, there have to be a few players that are HOF-worthy. It does not take into account that there may be valleys and spikes across the eras, where there may be a bunch of really great players in one decade, but a dearth of them in another.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glchen

Right, the issue is that stats like WAR and JAWS (which is based on WAR) is not like traditional statistics, in that they are based on someone's opinion on the weighting that goes into the formulas not to mention who knows what else. In addition, these newer stats become skewed in the age of PED users. You are comparing players to other players around the league, but if those players are using, and their stats go up, then the non-users WAR goes down in comparison.

The other thing is that WAR is trying era-adjust, so that you can compare players across the years. That is like saying, in every year, there have to be a few players that are HOF-worthy. It does not take into account that there may be valleys and spikes across the eras, where there may be a bunch of really great players in one decade, but a dearth of them in another.

Any metric has its limitations, for sure. But that said, would you not agree that purely using counting stats can be very skewed? Regarding your last point, I guess it's possible some 40s players get the benefit of being high relative to a mediocre average given the depleting effect of WWII, but other than that, can we really say that as a whole, "baseball" overall was better in one decade than another?

Let's ask it another way, if you look at the JAWS/WAR rankings (or the related Baseball Reference metrics), how many instances do you really see where you say, that's insane?

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Any metric has its limitations, for sure. But that said, would you not agree that purely using counting stats can be very skewed? Regarding your last point, I guess it's possible some 40s players get the benefit of being high relative to a mediocre average given the depleting effect of WWII, but other than that, can we really say that as a whole, "baseball" overall was better in one decade than another?

Let's ask it another way, if you look at the JAWS/WAR rankings (or the related Baseball Reference metrics), how many instances do you really see where you say, that's insane?

Well, when I see players like Bobby Grich with such high WAR's, I think that's insane. Seriously, I was taking a look at one of his highest WAR year, and in that year, Grich batted 6th in his lineup. So, we're saying that his manager thought he was the 4th best hitter on his team, at best, yet this guy is somehow a marginal HOFer, while the 3-4-5 batters on the team (like Brian Downing) are like jokes when considering them of the Hall? Just the common sense of this doesn't ring true to me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

http://www.hallofstats.com/articles/...l-of-fame-case

[glchen]

Peter, most of that article uses elements of what goes into WAR, which as I've said has flaws. For example, if we use WAR, Cy Young (WAR of 170) destroys Walter Johnson (WAR of 152) for same number of years played. And Sandy Koufax has about the same WAR as Urban Shocker for about the same number of years played.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by glchen

Well, when I see players like Bobby Grich with such high WAR's, I think that's insane. Seriously, I was taking a look at one of his highest WAR year, and in that year, Grich batted 6th in his lineup. So, we're saying that his manager thought he was the 4th best hitter on his team, at best, yet this guy is somehow a marginal HOFer, while the 3-4-5 batters on the team (like Brian Downing) are like jokes when considering them of the Hall? Just the common sense of this doesn't ring true to me.

That was an excellent article breaking down the case for Grich in layman's terms. Basically he is one of the top 8 offensive second basemen of all time, and one of the top 10 defensively of all time. The only second baseman better than Grich on both offense and defense is Nap Lajoie. That's it.

OPS+ is a quantitative stat. Nothing to do with someone's perception of value going into a complicated formula. OPS+ is what it is. Grich's career OPS+ is 125. Only four second basemen with 8,000 or more career plate appearances have a better career OPS+. Lajoie, Rogers Hornsby, Eddie Collins and Joe Morgan.

But you are basing it on where he batted in the lineup during his best year?

Do you see the problem here?

Tom C

[glchen]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

That was an excellent article breaking down the case for Grich in layman's terms. Basically he is one of the top 8 offensive second basemen of all time, and one of the top 10 defensively of all time. The only second baseman better than Grich on both offense and defense is Nap Lajoie. That's it.

OPS+ is a quantitative stat. Nothing to do with someone's perception of value going into a complicated formula. OPS+ is what it is. Grich's career OPS+ is 125. Only four second basemen with 8,000 or more career plate appearances have a better career OPS+. Lajoie, Rogers Hornsby, Eddie Collins and Joe Morgan.

But you are basing it on where he batted in the lineup during his best year?

Do you see the problem here?

Tom C

Tom, I know you're using stats, but I'm looking more at common sense. Grich, you are not even the most valuable player on this team, maybe the 4th most valuable at best, not including pitchers. Yet you're the only one who deserves to be looked at for inclusion into the Hall of Fame. Doesn't that just seem strange to you?

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Any metric has its limitations, for sure. But that said, would you not agree that purely using counting stats can be very skewed? Regarding your last point, I guess it's possible some 40s players get the benefit of being high relative to a mediocre average given the depleting effect of WWII, but other than that, can we really say that as a whole, "baseball" overall was better in one decade than another?

Let's ask it another way, if you look at the JAWS/WAR rankings (or the related Baseball Reference metrics), how many instances do you really see where you say, that's insane?

Keith Hernandez having a lifetime defensive WAR of 0.6.

Adam Jones being rated an average or below average center fielder.

Defensive WAR is not something that can be relied on.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

Keith Hernandez having a lifetime defensive WAR of 0.6.

Adam Jones being rated an average or below average center fielder.

Defensive WAR is not something that can be relied on.

yeah I am not convinced yet about defensive stats

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Any metric has its limitations, for sure. But that said, would you not agree that purely using counting stats can be very skewed? Regarding your last point, I guess it's possible some 40s players get the benefit of being high relative to a mediocre average given the depleting effect of WWII, but other than that, can we really say that as a whole, "baseball" overall was better in one decade than another?

Let's ask it another way, if you look at the JAWS/WAR rankings (or the related Baseball Reference metrics), how many instances do you really see where you say, that's insane?

Peter, while I am a fan of WAR/JAWS metrics, from a pitcher's perspective, Phil Niekro and Bert Blyleven being rated ahead of Christy Mathewson is absolutely ludicrous....beyond insane. Yet, as with any rating xystem, there has to be flaws and the Matty ranking is certainly one of them....LOL!!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Peter, while I am a fan of WAR/JAWS metrics, from a pitcher's perspective, Phil Niekro and Bert Blyleven being rated ahead of Christy Mathewson is absolutely ludicrous....beyond insane. Yet, as with any rating xystem, there has to be flaws and the Matty ranking is certainly one of them....LOL!!!

Not according to what I am looking at. Matty blows them away using JAWS and is still ahead using WAR.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_P.shtml

or

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_P.shtml

[Peter_Spaeth]

Where Grich really stands out offensively is power and patience. He slugged .424 while the league slugged .384. His OBP was .371 while the league’s was .324. That is a huge difference. Add it up and Grich’s OPS was .794 against the league’s .707. That’s how you get an OPS+ of 125. Steve Garvey’s OPS+, for example, was 117. Jim Rice was 128. Dave Parker was 121. That’s how good an offensive player Grich was. He just did it with plate discipline and power during a power-depressed era. That’s how you fly under the radar.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not according to what I am looking at. Matty blows them away using JAWS and is still ahead using WAR.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_P.shtml

or

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_P.shtml

Thx Peter. The listing I was looking at had Matty's WAR at 95.3 versus the 101 in your reference? Maybe it was outdated.....

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Any metric has its limitations, for sure. But that said, would you not agree that purely using counting stats can be very skewed? Regarding your last point, I guess it's possible some 40s players get the benefit of being high relative to a mediocre average given the depleting effect of WWII, but other than that, can we really say that as a whole, "baseball" overall was better in one decade than another?

Right, I do think that WAR has its uses as another stat when used in conjunction with other stats. For example, if you have a player like Dave Kingman with a lot of home runs, you also have to take a look at his Mendoza line batting average. I think a lot of folks consider WAR the "best" stat because it consolidates a lot of others. However, I think it should be used in with other stats and obvious common sense. This was like the BCS in college football before where they had computers do the rankings. Obviously, no matter how much you tried to input into the system, there were still issues with what the computers came up with.