|
Post by cookiedabookie on Feb 20, 2024 8:37:25 GMT -8
I'll come back to read everything. But here's my prelim for 2025 right now:
1. Ichiro Suzuki, RF, PHOM 2025 2. Bob Johnson, LF, PHOM 1960 3. CC Sabathia, SP, PHOM 2025 4. Thurman Munson, C, PHOM 1985 5. Tim Hudson, SP, PHOM 2021 6. Roy Oswalt, SP, PHOM 2022 7. Jorge Posada, C, PHOM 2021 8. Bill Byrd, SP, PHOM 1950 9. Babe Adams, PHOM SP, 1933 10. Joe Tinker, SS, PHOM 1926 11. Heavy Johnson, RF, PHOM 1939 12. Buddy Bell, 3B, PHOM 1996 13. Dwight Gooden, SP, PHOM 2006 14. David Ortiz, 1B, PHOM 2023 15. David Wright, 3B, Future PHOM 16. Russell Martin, C, Future PHOM 17. Mark Buehrle, SP, PHOM 2023 18. Bus Clarkson, SS, PHOM 1967 19. Tetelo Vargas, SS, PHOM 1968 20. Ramon Bragana, SP, PHOM 1965 21. Kevin Appier, SP, PHOM 2012 22. Urban Shocker, SP, PHOM 1937 23. Hurley McNair, RF, PHOM 1975 24. Robin Ventura, 3B, PHOM 2012 25. Tommy John, SP, PHOM 1995
Top Ten Returnees not listed: Sal Bando: 32nd, PHOM 2012 Vic Wilis: 68th, PHOM 1919
|
|
|
Post by markdonelson on Mar 1, 2024 21:15:52 GMT -8
Former longtime voter here, returning after a long sojourn (I have to admit the BBTF implosion kind of brought my attention back, so...thanks, Jim?)! As those who were here when I last voted in...(checks watch)...the 2012 election will perhaps recall, I was an extreme peak voter, and so I pretty much remain, if slightly less so than when I began. And while I got re-intrigued in time for the 2024 election, I quickly realized that stats have evolved a great deal in the years since my last participation, so it took me some time to convert/develop a new system, but I think I've managed to wrangle one into a respectable enough place to start actually voting again this time around. What I'm working with now leans most heavily on nonconsecutive peaks via WAA, but I give bWAR and even Win Shares a bit of weight too, as well as leverage for relief pitchers. I adjust for era and positional balance, and give war credit, held-in-minors credit, and strike credit. Oh, and NPB credit, quite relevant this year! I have been studying my old (former?) fellow peakish voter Dr. Chaleeko's MLEs for the pre-integration NeL players and am making adjustments to what has always been a particularly tricky assessment (given that as I recall MLEs of the past tended to have the potential of artificially flattening peaks), but I'm probably going to continue those going forward as I have time to further understand his recent work. Finally, I have long felt that the value of players whose primes straddled the waning NeLs and 1950s MLB isn't properly captured by existing stats, and that those in the category who play out as borderline statistically are in fact worthy--thus Elston Howard's longstanding spot on my ballot. I suspect I am forgetting other things I do that everyone was used to when I voted every year but may present newer voters with befuddlement, so please grill me as necessary--some of those things may be blind spots that need changing! And we're listing 20 ballot spots now, I gather? That would make my 2025 prelim: 1. Ichiro Suzuki (pHOM 2025): I expected him to be more of a slam-dunk than he turned out to be, peak-wise, but with NPB credit he still easily tops the ballot. 2. Ned Williamson (pHOM 1931): Nice to see that the (slight) trend back in his favor that seemed to be starting back when I last voted has been sustained. He’s long been a personal favorite for great peaks both offensive and defensive; to me he's always seemed a no-brainer for peak voters who don’t timeline. Yes, I know about (and account for) the house-rules homers. 3. Don Newcombe (pHOM 2008): A difficult career to evaluate, especially for a peak voter, but with war credit for what would have been prime years and some adjustment for his NeL and minor league years early on (as one of those straddlers), I'm convinced he's worthy. 4. Phil Rizzuto (pHOM 2004): A short but high peak, stellar defensive stats that are backed up by his rep during his own time, plus a load of war credit for his missing prime make him an easy choice for me. 5. Vic Willis (pHOM 1961): He was eclipsed by some of his all-time-great contemporaries, but still a really notable peak even for the era. 6. Elston Howard (pHOM 1976): The various extenuating circumstances of his career can’t hide the great (even if short) peak. Prime beneficiary of my belief that NeL/MLB tweeners get short shrift. 7. Al Rosen (pHOM 1968): The vote that has always epitomized my peakster-ism; I return as his best friend once more. Five great years, especially at 3B, are enough for me. 8. Jason Giambi (pHOM 2020): It's all about offense, but a hell of a peak. 9. Gavvy Cravath (pHOM 1985): With minor-league credit—which I feel he deserves—he’s a pretty easy choice for a peak voter, with the requisite number of years to prove his ability. I'm not bothered by his taking full advantage of his home park. 10. Johnny Pesky (pHOM 1997): Another large war credit beneficiary, similar to his contemporary Rizzuto. 11. Dizzy Dean (pHOM 1967): Another really short peak, but he was inarguably dominant during it. Dean represents the lower limits of how many peak years I need to see, but he has them. 12. Kevin Appier (pHOM 2012): Strike credit puts him over the top. 13. Hugh Duffy (pHOM 1930): He's wandered around the lower edges of my ballots forever. Somehow his peak is kind of boring at this point, but it's still there. 14. Hilton Smith (pHOM 2017): As noted I'm still making my way through the new MLEs so this could change, but from previous evaluations he looks worthy to me. 15. Jorge Posada (pHOM 2020): Plenty of peak for a catcher unless you really massively devalue him for defense...and as someone here said recently, how good must all those other '90s Yankees have been if both his and Jeter's defense were as bad as some of the metrics would have it? 16. Dale Murphy (pHOM 2021): Hugh Duffy, a century later. 17. Noodles Hahn (pHOM 2020): More proof I'm not doing any strategic voting--but if you value short pitcher peaks as anyone voting for Dean must, he's impossible to ignore. 18. Ken Singleton (pHOM 1997): His moment here seems to have passed in the years I've been away, and I get it--there's a lot of mostly offense corner outfielders out there--but he has a really nice offensive peak in an era rather low on them. 19. Eddie Cicotte (pHOM 1972): Another guy with clear enough dominance for long enough. Doesn't hurt that he's from a somewhat underrepresented era. 20. David Wright (pHOM 2023): Better than I realized at the time, with some remarkable years. That his career was cut so short by the injuries is tragic but doesn't bother me voting-wise since I'm not a career guy. Required disclosures: Buddy Bell: Not near the peak I look for, not close to my ballot. Sal Bando: Just a bit off ballot in the low 30s range; he's in my pHOM. Tommy John: Loved the guy, but he's the ultimate career candidate with no peak to speak of. Thurman Munson: In the 40s range, not far from my ballot, not quite in my pHOM but may still get there one of these days. Bob Johnson: Another non-peak guy who's never done much for me, not near my ballot and never has been. David Ortiz: Juuuust off ballot, in the low 20s. Tim Hudson: It's not that the peak is too short, it's that it's just not high enough even at its highest. Not near my ballot. Urban Shocker: Pretty much the same thing as Hudson. And, since he'll clearly be high on many ballots: C.C. Sabathia: I was expecting a more impressive peak, but it's just not there; he's far more a prime/career guy than I'd realized. Still good enough to get into the 50s-60s range but no further.
|
|
kcgard2
Hall of Merit Voter
Posts: 98
|
Post by kcgard2 on Mar 2, 2024 5:23:45 GMT -8
Hey Mark, welcome back.
I have an impression that your HOM might have twice as many pre-1960 players in it as post-1960 (some exaggeration, but making a point), based on this ballot. Any thoughts on era representation? I would say one must think we've done quite a bad job at picking the old-time players to think there's still (way) more worthy ones of them left than even halfway modern players.
|
|
nate
Hall of Merit Voter
Posts: 27
|
Post by nate on Mar 2, 2024 11:27:41 GMT -8
I don't think Rosen's, Murphy's or Wright's 5 year peak was that much better than Tulowitzki's... But I suppose, while Tulowitzki had 5 very good years, he never had a monster year like Rosen's 1953. Is he just off your ballot, or does the lack of MPVish type years push him further down?
|
|
|
Post by markdonelson on Mar 2, 2024 13:11:34 GMT -8
Hey Mark, welcome back. I have an impression that your HOM might have twice as many pre-1960 players in it as post-1960 (some exaggeration, but making a point), based on this ballot. Any thoughts on era representation? I would say one must think we've done quite a bad job at picking the old-time players to think there's still (way) more worthy ones of them left than even halfway modern players. Thanks! Well, I would put it more gently than that: I differ a good deal on which pre-1960 players I'd have picked along the way, due to my far stronger emphasis on peak than the general electorate throughout the process. In other words, there are quite a lot of pre-1960 HOM-not-pHOM players for me to match the pHOM-not-HOM ones all over my ballot; some examples of the former: Wallace, McPhee, Carey, Ruffing, Lemon, Rixey, Early Wynn, Sewell, Boyer (well, he's partly pre-1960), Beckley. That said, it's quite possible my era adjustments have gone out of whack (or always were), and that some of the borderline post-1960s guys who are just off my ballot right now should be higher (like John Olerud, who is the very next in line currently, David Ortiz, Cliff Lee, Albert Belle, Miguel Tejada, Jason Kendall, and Frank Viola). I'll take a look at that before final ballot.
|
|
|
Post by markdonelson on Mar 2, 2024 13:20:41 GMT -8
I don't think Rosen's, Murphy's or Wright's 5 year peak was that much better than Tulowitzki's... But I suppose, while Tulowitzki had 5 very good years, he never had a monster year like Rosen's 1953. Is he just off your ballot, or does the lack of MPVish type years push him further down? Because I highly value very high peaks even as short as 3 years, I see Tulo as more a prime candidate than a peak one, for precisely the reasons you say. He's not terribly close to my ballot, but he's not completely out of sight of it either. But perhaps I'm underestimating his defense? I don't see his offense as getting him into the Rosen/Murphy/Wright level even if I extend to four/five-year peaks, but I am still pretty conservative about extreme defensive value on either end of the spectrum.
|
|
nate
Hall of Merit Voter
Posts: 27
|
Post by nate on Mar 2, 2024 19:38:09 GMT -8
I don't think Rosen's, Murphy's or Wright's 5 year peak was that much better than Tulowitzki's... But I suppose, while Tulowitzki had 5 very good years, he never had a monster year like Rosen's 1953. Is he just off your ballot, or does the lack of MPVish type years push him further down? Because I highly value very high peaks even as short as 3 years, I see Tulo as more a prime candidate than a peak one, for precisely the reasons you say. He's not terribly close to my ballot, but he's not completely out of sight of it either. But perhaps I'm underestimating his defense? I don't see his offense as getting him into the Rosen/Murphy/Wright level even if I extend to four/five-year peaks, but I am still pretty conservative about extreme defensive value on either end of the spectrum. Well, I'm not really advocating for Tulo, he's not near my ballot because a) I try to balance peak and career, and obviously the latter is lacking, and b) I factor in fWAR, and UZR doesn't see his defense as being nearly as good as DRS does. DRS has him at 98 fielding runs over his career while UZR has him at a more pedestrian 36.1. 98 fielding runs is great, though not really a historic level (his number of games is low, of course, but Andrelton Simmons has 200 fielding runs in less games, which is a historic performance), while 36 would be good, but nothing too special. I guess I was just surprised to see a peak voter who is heavily weighting WAA not like Tulowitzki, as that's one stat where he looks pretty good, at least the way BRef calculates it, especially in comparison to the other guys I mentioned.
| 3 Year WAA
| 5 Year WAA
| Total WAA
| 3 Year bWAR
| 5 Year bWAR
| Total bWAR
| Al Rosen
| 15.8
| 19.9
| 18.9 | 22 | 29.9 | 32.3 | Dale Murphy
| 14.5 | 21.5 | 16.4 | 21.4 | 33.1 | 46.5 | David Wright
| 16.2 | 22.7 | 28.7 | 22.3 | 32.3 | 49.2 | Troy Tulowitzki
| 14.5 | 23.3 | 27.6 | 20 | 31.9 | 44.5 |
I don't see a ton separating those players' peaks in WAA and bWAR. Tulo is tied with Murphy in 3 Year WAA, and while he's behind the others in 3 Year bWAR, it's not by much. He's actually the best in 5 year WAA and middle of the pack in 5 year bWAR. He does derive more of his value by defense than any of the others, so if you're calculating WAA differently than BRef, or reducing the defensive contribution somehow, then I suppose I could see him being left behind. I also don't know of a good current source for Win Shares, with Hardball Times and Baseball Gauge gone, so no clue on how that sees him.
|
|
kcgard2
Hall of Merit Voter
Posts: 98
|
Post by kcgard2 on Mar 3, 2024 5:28:12 GMT -8
Win Shares are part of his system, so he's definitely down-weighting defensive contributions.
|
|
|
Post by markdonelson on Mar 3, 2024 16:28:36 GMT -8
Win Shares are part of his system, so he's definitely down-weighting defensive contributions. Yes, and maybe even more importantly here I do also attempt some UZR/DRS "balancing" in cases like this where they disagree a lot. But it's quite possible that results in overdoing my scaling back of defensive value, an adjustment I made in my last few years of voting that had a bit of throwing-up-my-hands about it, I must admit. So I'll revisit this, both for these players specifically and for my entire system in general (over a bit more time in the latter case).
|
|
|
Post by markdonelson on Mar 3, 2024 17:03:10 GMT -8
Also, re the eras thing, that question made me curious, so I took the time to go back and see where I stand on Chris's decade-by-decade numbers, in terms of my pHOM, and as I had suspected/hoped, I match the actual HOM's numbers pretty closely.
In fact, the only decades where I'm off by more than +1 or -1 player from the HOM numbers are the 1910s (where I have 3 more than the HOM), the 1920s (4 fewer), and perhaps the 1950s (1-2 more than the HOM, depending on where you put a couple of people).
|
|
|
Post by chriscobb on Mar 3, 2024 17:42:08 GMT -8
Also, re the eras thing, that question made me curious, so I took the time to go back and see where I stand on Chris's decade-by-decade numbers, in terms of my pHOM, and as I had suspected/hoped, I match the actual HOM's numbers pretty closely. In fact, the only decades where I'm off by more than +1 or -1 player from the HOM numbers are the 1910s (where I have 3 more than the HOM), the 1920s (4 fewer), and perhaps the 1950s (1-2 more than the HOM, depending on where you put a couple of people). Interesting! Did you find that your selections diverged from the HoM electoral results at a pretty consistent rate across all periods, or are there some periods of notably higher and lower agreement?
|
|
|
Post by bleedthefreak on Mar 5, 2024 20:04:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by chriscobb on Mar 6, 2024 14:11:03 GMT -8
Thanks for posting! Do you know anything more about this project than what's shared in the glossary? I am intrigued by "WAR 2.0," but it would be helpful to have a systematic statement about how it differs from what BBRef is offering and the rationale for making the changes. From what I have seen from examining a handful of player records, 2.0 is not resulting in a major change in player evaluations, but for players at the borderline and for rank-ordering players, integrating these numbers into an evaluation would make a difference.
A consistent difference that I noted is that batting value for pitchers has gone up. Just to mention a couple of end-point values: Sandy Koufax goes up to -1.8 batting WAR from -4.2 batting WAR at BBRef, while Bucky Walters goes up to 11.2 batting WAR from 7.0 WAR. This looks like a result of a systemic change in setting replacement level for pitcher hitting, so I wonder how that has happened. Also for pitchers, I am interested in the impact of the altered approach to calculating pitchers' defensive support. There are lots of things to consider here, so I am hoping for more context, if it can be found.
|
|
kcgard2
Hall of Merit Voter
Posts: 98
|
Post by kcgard2 on Mar 6, 2024 14:43:55 GMT -8
Also would like more context. If pitchers get more batting value across the board, where is that WAR coming from? All hitters take a small hit? Or does WAR 2.0 just apportion more WAR per season across the board?
|
|
|
Post by chriscobb on Mar 6, 2024 16:15:02 GMT -8
Also would like more context. If pitchers get more batting value across the board, where is that WAR coming from? All hitters take a small hit? Or does WAR 2.0 just apportion more WAR per season across the board? I don't think it's the latter, as replacement level continees to se set at a .294 winning percentage.
|
|
|
Post by markdonelson on Mar 8, 2024 17:03:13 GMT -8
Also, re the eras thing, that question made me curious, so I took the time to go back and see where I stand on Chris's decade-by-decade numbers, in terms of my pHOM, and as I had suspected/hoped, I match the actual HOM's numbers pretty closely. In fact, the only decades where I'm off by more than +1 or -1 player from the HOM numbers are the 1910s (where I have 3 more than the HOM), the 1920s (4 fewer), and perhaps the 1950s (1-2 more than the HOM, depending on where you put a couple of people). Interesting! Did you find that your selections diverged from the HoM electoral results at a pretty consistent rate across all periods, or are there some periods of notably higher and lower agreement? Do you mean as voting progressed through the years, was I keeping more or less the same pace? I'm not sure, I'd have to go back through all the voting to figure that out. I do think I've been increasing my numbers of 1950s players more recently, though, rather than having put them all in right away.
|
|
|
Post by chriscobb on Mar 8, 2024 17:55:25 GMT -8
Yes, that's what I meant. If it's a lot of trouble to find out, it wouldn't be worth the time. I am curious about how voting patterns in the HoM electorate have changed over time, so if it's easy to see that your selections and those of the HoM as a whole have converged or diverged over time, that give some perspective on election patterns. This sort of thing might be impossible to track in any meaningful way. I have never maintained a personal HoM. Lacking my own data to experiment on, I am curious about what other voters' data might show, but I don't have basis for estimating. Hence the question.
|
|
kcgard2
Hall of Merit Voter
Posts: 98
|
Post by kcgard2 on Mar 8, 2024 18:44:34 GMT -8
In earlier HOM years, voting was heavily swayed by Win Shares, whereas now it minimally is. There was more participation in early years (when elections were every two weeks, participation was somewhat easier). And frankly, there was more idiosyncrasy in early years. A number of voters had pet candidates who only moved out of the top spot of their ballot for Mays-level inner circle guys. The mere Eddie Mathewses and Bob Fellers of the world had to settle for somewhere below the pet. I don't see really any of that ever since I started 8(?) years ago.
|
|
|
Post by chriscobb on Mar 8, 2024 22:19:17 GMT -8
" And frankly, there was more idiosyncrasy in early years. A number of voters had pet candidates who only moved out of the top spot of their ballot for Mays-level inner circle guys."
That's certainly true, although that idiosyncrasy was to a considerable extent an artifact of the rapid pace of elections. With an election every two weeks, there was typically only enough time to figure out how to place the new candidates in one's existing rankings and engage in a bit of discussion. Once players were ranked on a voter's ballot, they mostly stayed in place relative to the other players in the voter's rankings. Most voters would reexamine their system every so often, but the elections were moving so much faster than the pace at which sabermetric measures were developing that there would be little new information to push voters to change between most elections. So once a "pet" candidate got put into place, it would be a long time before new inputs of information would arrive that would be sufficient to disrupt and re-form a voter's conclusions. With annual elections, the development of sabermetric measures progresses as fast or sometimes faster than the elections, so there's both promptsings and time available for voters to rethink major aspects of their analysis every years, if they are so inclined.
|
|
|
Post by bleedthefreak on Mar 9, 2024 11:09:54 GMT -8
In earlier HOM years, voting was heavily swayed by Win Shares, whereas now it minimally is. There was more participation in early years (when elections were every two weeks, participation was somewhat easier). And frankly, there was more idiosyncrasy in early years. A number of voters had pet candidates who only moved out of the top spot of their ballot for Mays-level inner circle guys. The mere Eddie Mathewses and Bob Fellers of the world had to settle for somewhere below the pet. I don't see really any of that ever since I started 8(?) years ago. Win Shares was top dog for the early stages. Warp at Baseball Prospectus came along and was a contender, but not used as heavily as WS. In ~2007, Dan rosenheck's warp was what felt like an improvement on both methods, but this came along late enough that it didn't have a significant influence until the elections in the mid 90s til 2008. Edd roush and Nellie Fox were able to sneak in during this time, despite Dan's protests. However, it may have prevented the election of Tony Perez and Kirby Puckett, as well as pushing John McGraw and reggie Smith's candidacy over the line, among others.
In ~2008, Sean Smith's war was published at Baseball Projection, then was picked up by Baseball-reference not long after, becoming the favorite metric of choice.
Not long after, Michael Humphrey's published dra for defense, what was likely an improvement on TZ, allowing for Baseball Gauge war to flourish that a number of us have leveraged.
And finally, sometime not long post, Tom Thress unveiled win-loss records, leveraging retrosheet data to compile context and non-contextual war flavors. I use this as a key metric, though I'm not aware of others doing so.
This month, Sean Smith dropped war 2.0, which looks like an improvement on quantifying defense and baserunning.
|
|
|
Post by herrdoktorchaleeko on Mar 14, 2024 10:50:06 GMT -8
Just wanted to talk about WAR “2.0” for a sec. Two specific things. 1) It’s really cool that we now have two WARs by the same person with two very different starting points. IMO, “2.0” should not supplant current WAR but should complement it. Instead of calling it 2.0, it should carry Tango’s name “Naive WAR” or something descriptive rather than iterative.
2) I’m not sure yet how compatible Victory WAR or whatever Sean’s alt-name is with MLEs. Couple reasons for that. First, we have little or no retrosheet PBP data for the Negeo Leagues, Latin leagues, and Japan. Secondly, and more challengingly, there are no wins to tie back to because in MLE world players enter the destination league as if on a completely average team. This will require some research on my part, but my initial take is that it is unclear whether there is any kind of problematic interactions between faux wins for MLE players and actual league win totals.
Let me know if that doesn’t make sense. Also, I’m on my phone so please excuse errors.
|
|
|
Post by herrdoktorchaleeko on Mar 14, 2024 10:50:56 GMT -8
Also another point. Would Omar Linares be HOM eligible?
|
|
|
Post by chriscobb on Mar 14, 2024 17:46:12 GMT -8
Also another point. Would Omar Linares be HOM eligible? The relevant language from the HoM Constitution is ambiguous with respect to Linares' case, I think:
"All major league players are eligible for the Hall of Merit. Also eligible are all “excluded” players, most notably Negro Leaguers, and pre-MLB players that played professional ball in the US. Following the timing of Hall of Fame ballots, players are generally eligible for the Hall of Merit five years after their last MLB (or equivalent) season. Unlike the HoF, players’ HoM eligibility never expires."
Since Linares never played professional baseball in the United States, that would suggest that he would not be eligible. Since the obvious reason that he didn't play professional baseball in the United States is that he wasn't free to leave Cuba to do so, that would suggest that he could be eligible as part of the "excluded" players category.
In the absence of an active Commissioner for the Hall of Merit, questions about procedure tend to have been put up for discussion and then, if there's general agreement about the answer, it has been adopted by the folks who are doing the active work of managing the site and running elections. DL and Jaack are the people most clearly in those roles: is that how you would see the question about Linares' eligibility being handled?
|
|
|
Post by Jaack on Mar 14, 2024 19:23:18 GMT -8
I wouldn't want to claim authority to make any official decision, but I will happily weigh in. I don't think I like relying too hard on the 'excluded' players category - it's very easy to make the case that Japanese players were excluded unfairly before the establishment of the posting system, and if there is one class of players that is indubitably excluded it is those who played exclusively in the NPB.
I'm honestly 50/50 whether Linares is more similar to an NPB player, or someone like Perucho Cepeda or Carlos Moran who had few direct contributions to US baseball (although in different ways) but played in the great North American baseball system. If I had to pick now it would be that it's more like the NPB situation - while the political situation is distinct, both are leagues that were distinguished on national lines, not discriminatory ones. That being said, I think it's also easy to fall back on the idea of 'North American' baseball, which is a clean way to continue to not consider pure NPB players while avoiding any strange edge cases for Caribbean ones.
|
|
alex02
Hall of Merit Voter
Posts: 39
|
Post by alex02 on Mar 15, 2024 5:30:44 GMT -8
Has anyone done any analysis of the biggest gainers and/or losers of WAR 2.0 as opposed to what's listed on B-Ref?
I've been somewhat randomly looking at borderline-ish players and haven't found too many huge differences. The most consequential one I've come across might be Todd Helton, who drops from 61.8 WAR on B-Ref to 54.7 on this system. It looks like Larry Walker also drops, so maybe there's something going on with Coors?
Kenny Lofton, Johan Santana and Orel Hershiser are a couple others I've found who take pretty significant hits. I haven't found any borderline candidates who see a huge bump, but I also haven't looked that thoroughly.
|
|
|
Post by bleedthefreak on Mar 15, 2024 7:53:02 GMT -8
Has anyone done any analysis of the biggest gainers and/or losers of WAR 2.0 as opposed to what's listed on B-Ref? I've been somewhat randomly looking at borderline-ish players and haven't found too many huge differences. The most consequential one I've come across might be Todd Helton, who drops from 61.8 WAR on B-Ref to 54.7 on this system. It looks like Larry Walker also drops, so maybe there's something going on with Coors? Kenny Lofton, Johan Santana and Orel Hershiser are a couple others I've found who take pretty significant hits. I haven't found any borderline candidates who see a huge bump, but I also haven't looked that thoroughly. I'm in the middle of a data dump that I can share once completed.
A list of position players ~halfway through the alphabet.
For the 2025 ballot:
Fringey pre-integration Kiki Cuyler and Dave Bancroft are significant winners. Post-integration: Ron Cey and Jack Clark.
Risers, +5 wins: 2.0 1.0 Diff Name 79.5 55.6 23.9 Max Carey 27.2 14.7 12.5 Johnny Edwards 91.0 79.1 11.9 Joe DiMaggio 49.7 38.0 11.7 Steve Garvey 60.4 49.5 10.9 Nellie Fox 69.4 58.7 10.7 Darrell Evans 58.4 48.0 10.4 Kiki Cuyler 65.8 55.8 10.0 Freddie Freeman 81.3 71.8 9.5 Frankie Frisch 48.6 39.9 8.7 George J Burns 38.7 30.3 8.4 Bobby Bonilla 27.6 19.5 8.1 Joe Carter 119.2 111.2 8.1 Rickey Henderson 77.5 70.1 7.4 Gary Carter 67.5 60.4 7.1 Jim Edmonds 57.0 49.9 7.1 Dave Bancroft 23.5 16.5 7.0 Brad Ausmus 40.9 34.0 6.9 Elvis Andrus 149.8 143.0 6.8 Hank Aaron 51.0 44.2 6.8 Steve Finley 60.2 53.8 6.5 Ron Cey 22.8 16.4 6.4 Bubbles Hargrave 23.4 17.0 6.4 Jimmy Johnston 17.8 11.5 6.3 Shawon Dunston 48.5 42.3 6.3 Nelson Cruz 39.5 33.4 6.1 Ken Caminiti 20.6 14.7 5.9 Ryan Howard 27.5 21.6 5.9 Yoenis Cespedes 20.3 14.4 5.9 Tony Armas 24.5 18.8 5.7 Earl Battey 48.0 42.4 5.6 Lenny Dykstra 23.6 18.0 5.6 Cleon Jones 35.1 29.6 5.5 Marquis Grissom 28.2 22.8 5.4 Bret Boone 73.8 68.4 5.4 Carlton Fisk 31.5 26.2 5.3 Johnny Hopp 29.1 23.8 5.3 Prince Fielder 34.1 28.9 5.2 Matt Carpenter 51.5 46.4 5.1 Mark Grace 25.4 20.3 5.1 Bud Harrelson 58.1 53.1 5.0 Jack Clark 42.1 37.1 5.0 Jay Bell Fallers, -5.5 wins: 2.0 1.0 Diff Name 108.3 127.1 (18.8) Rogers Hornsby 76.9 93.5 (16.6) Adrian Beltre 29.5 44.3 (14.8) Brett Gardner 72.0 83.8 (11.8) Ken Griffey Jr. 61.9 72.2 (10.3) Harry Heilmann 12.6 22.6 (10.0) Charles Johnson 45.6 55.1 (9.5) Earl Averill 24.8 33.8 (9.0) Tony Cuccinello 32.0 41.0 (9.0) Mark Belanger 16.1 24.8 (8.7) Ival Goodman 83.0 91.4 (8.4) Wade Boggs 54.9 63.0 (8.1) Bob Johnson 39.4 47.2 (7.8) Curtis Granderson 57.1 64.8 (7.7) Andre Dawson 27.3 35.0 (7.7) Brady Anderson 67.6 75.1 (7.5) Johnny Bench 15.4 22.9 (7.5) Darren Daulton 54.7 61.8 (7.1) Todd Helton 27.4 34.4 (7.0) Travis Fryman 17.2 24.2 (7.0) Gene Alley 31.8 38.7 (6.9) Juan Gonzalez 9.0 15.8 (6.8) Jody Davis 44.7 51.4 (6.7) Bobby Doerr 50.2 56.8 (6.6) Larry Doby 35.5 42.0 (6.5) Harlond Clift 18.0 24.4 (6.4) Carlos Gonzalez 29.2 35.6 (6.4) Tommy Holmes 17.0 23.1 (6.1) Bobby Higginson 14.6 20.6 (6.0) Melky Cabrera 11.9 17.8 (5.9) Jeff Burroughs 22.2 28.1 (5.9) JJ Hardy 50.5 56.3 (5.8) Johnny Damon 17.0 22.8 (5.8) Michael Bourn 11.3 17.1 (5.8) Eddie Bressoud 14.1 19.9 (5.8) Jeromy Burnitz 60.6 66.3 (5.7) Buddy Bell 13.9 19.6 (5.7) Dick Hoblitzell 46.7 52.4 (5.7) Brian Giles 35.5 41.2 (5.7) Jack Fournier 16.8 22.4 (5.6) Jim Gantner 16.5 22.1 (5.6) Austin Jackson 33.0 38.5 (5.5) Lorenzo Cain
|
|
|
Post by chriscobb on Mar 15, 2024 8:47:49 GMT -8
Since Buddy Bell is a top returning backlog candidate, I thought I'd take a close look at the changes from BBRef WAR to WAR2.0 for him. The executive summary is that all of the change comes from three sources: (1) reduction of positional adjustment, (2) reduction in runs above replacement allocation, and (3) a slight reduction in the wins per run conversion.
Here's full breakdown
Batting Value Above Average: +1 run Rbat 110 Bat Runs 111
Baserunning Value Above Average: +3 runs Rbaser -17 + Rdp -8 = -25 Bsr -15 + GIDP -8 + ROE 1 = -22
Fielding Value Above Average: -2 runs Rfield = 174 TZ 173 + OFarm -1 = 172
Positional Adjustment: -15 runs Rpos = 44 Pas adj. = 27
Replacement Runs: -35 runs Rrep = 347 Rep = 312
Wins per Run: -1.0 win BBRef = .1022 WAR2.0 = .1005
One further note: it looks like the positional adjustment for third base changes in WAR2.0 around 1980: Bell's positional adjustments are about the same in both systems through the 1970s, but they drop to 1 run per year in WAR 2.0 in 1980, while they stay at +2 to +3 runs/year in BBRef WAR. The changes in Rep Level and wins/run are a bit too far inside the engine for a superficial inspection to track.
|
|
|
Post by chriscobb on Mar 15, 2024 8:58:08 GMT -8
Quick Alert re Bleedthefreak's report on WAR2.0 changes:
When I went to take a quick look to see the changes that had resulted in such a large rise for Max Carey, I found that the numbers for him currently posted for WAR2.0 on the Baseball Projection site don't match the numbers in Bleed's list.
Carey is now listed at 50.6 WAR2.0, not 79.5.
Seeing that, I did a quick spot check on the other centerfielders with big jumps--Joe Dimaggio and Kiki Cuyler, and their totals are also much lower now than what appears in Bleed's list.
It looks like there may still be some kinks in the system that are getting ironed out and adjusted, so I'd recommend checking again on any player whose numbers are of interest rather than relying on this list, which appears to have captured some numbers that have since been changed.
|
|
|
Post by bleedthefreak on Mar 15, 2024 10:34:13 GMT -8
Quick Alert re Bleedthefreak's report on WAR2.0 changes: When I went to take a quick look to see the changes that had resulted in such a large rise for Max Carey, I found that the numbers for him currently posted for WAR2.0 on the Baseball Projection site don't match the numbers in Bleed's list. Carey is now listed at 50.6 WAR2.0, not 79.5. Seeing that, I did a quick spot check on the other centerfielders with big jumps--Joe Dimaggio and Kiki Cuyler, and their totals are also much lower now than what appears in Bleed's list. It looks like there may still be some kinks in the system that are getting ironed out and adjusted, so I'd recommend checking again on any player whose numbers are of interest rather than relying on this list, which appears to have captured some numbers that have since been changed. Hey Chris, I'm still seeing 79.5 for Carey and 58.4 for Cuyler:
Carey by year/team:
5.8 1912 4.2 1913 3.0 1914 4.2 1915 7.1 1916 7.1 1917 4.8 1918 2.4 1919 4.4 1920 7.3 1921 7.7 1922 7.6 1923 6.2 1924 4.5 1925 0.0 1926 -0.4 1926 3.3 1927 0.3 1928 0.0 1929 79.5 TOT
|
|
|
Post by chriscobb on Mar 15, 2024 10:53:14 GMT -8
Bleedthefreak, it looks like there are two different sets of WAR numbers available at the BaseballProjection.com site. When I access the site via the url you provided above -- www.baseballprojection.com/war2/glossary.htm -- I get to the glossary page. If I navigate to players from the index on that page, I get to the stats you quote above. When I access the site via its own homepage -- www.baseballprojection.com -- and access what is advertised as "Wins Above Replacement, 1871-2009" link in the upper left hand corner of the page, I end up in a different index that leads to a different set of player stats. When I discover that the big banner "WAR and Victory Shares" is in fact a link and click on it, I get to the glossary page and the index that leads to the stats you have presented. So there are two different sets of WAR stats on the site. It happens that for Buddy Bell, the career WAR total is exactly the same in both systems -- 60.6 -- but that may be a rare accident. Do you (or anyone else) know the status of that other set of WAR values that are included on the site? Maybe those are WAR 1.0, as it was when BBRef picked it up in 2009 and began advancing it year by year and making minor tweaks?
|
|