Twitter WAR: Fred McGriff, Tim Raines, and other Hall of Fame issues

by Sky Kalkman on Oct 15, 2009 10:54 AM EDT

I don't really have any analysis to provide, but here's a compilation of the careers of some Hall of Fame candidates I've been discussing on Twitter with @jasoncollette, @tommy_bennett, @Marc_Normandin, @jonahkeri, and others.

Quick summary: I'm not as sold on Rock Raines as some others (who might be a bit homerish), I like Edgar more than most, Albert Belle deserved more consideration, Jeff Bagwell should be a lock, Larry Walker is confusing for everyone, and Jason Collette sticks his fingers in his ears when people point out that Fred McGriff isn't Hall of Fame worthy.

Based on all that, here's a convoluted WAR graph based on baseballprojection.com data. (Click for a huge version.)

McGriff is obviously better than Baines and Galarraga, falls in Belle's ballpark (depending how you value quality vs. quantity), and is worse than the rest -- we probably need some more comparisons for him.

Walker holds his own and appears to very much be Raines' equal. (Rally's stats really like his baserunning and fielding skills in addition to the big bat.)

Albert Belle certainly was a stud, but his peak is definitely too short for serious consideration, and I'm saying that as someone who ignores longevity more than most.

What do you notice? Feel free to add any bits of information you think support or damn a player's candidacy in the comments. Or links to good articles others have written on these topics. Or suggest other players worth throwing in the discussion.

Tweet Comment 18 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Larkin?

I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore
Red Reporter
Basement-Dwellers.com
Twitter: @jinazreds

by JinAZ on Oct 15, 2009 10:57 AM EDT reply actions

The new 2010 candidates will be in their own WAR graph published later today -- sent the data to JBopp already.

Larkin should be in.

Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.

by Sky Kalkman on Oct 15, 2009 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions

Yes. Sorry about the delay -- site went down when I wanted to post last night.

You should see this tonight.

See Data Differently.
beyondtheboxscore.com | Twitter: @ justinbopp

by Justin Bopp on Oct 15, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions

McGriff :(

by R.J. Anderson on Oct 15, 2009 11:04 AM EDT reply actions

Another comment heard on Twitter:

@HOVG:

Ugh. I just can’t get behind Blyleven. Which is odd, because of my blind support of the hitting equivalent of him…Baines.

Equivalent? That green line goes nowhere near that turquoise line until almost 20 seasons in…

Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.

by Sky Kalkman on Oct 15, 2009 11:33 AM EDT reply actions

Blyleven, in one sense, deserves some extra credit here for being a pitcher.

The WAR baseline for pitchers is lower than it is for position players. What that means is that Blyleven falls in a higher percentile among pitchers than someone with the same WAR would fall among position players.

Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.

by Sky Kalkman on Oct 15, 2009 11:44 AM EDT reply actions

Blyleven the obvious conclusion of this graph

Yes, Blyleven is the most obvious conclusion from this graph — it is clear he should be in.

It would be nice to have a line showing the average HOFer on there, to give a bit of perspective (and yes, I am aware that the graph is already overfilled as is). Another alternative would be to use a couple of recent hall of famers, like Rice and Henderson, to give context, since most of us can actually remember those two players (and the debate surrounding their induction). A couple of the more marginal players here, like Baines and Galarraga could be removed (though I assume you included them because some people think they were all-time greats).

by KingDuct on Oct 15, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions

Yes, plenty more to do.

Here’s some old stuff:

Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.

by Sky Kalkman on Oct 15, 2009 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

What are the totals for each?

Jeff Zimmerman - Protecting the world from RBI's and Wins from my mom's guest house.

by Jeff Zimmerman on Oct 15, 2009 1:20 PM EDT reply actions

Not a huge fan of total WAR as a metric, but...

90 Blyleven
80 Thomas
80 Bagwell
69 Raines
68 Walker
52 McGriff
40 Belle
40 Baines
26 Galarraga

Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.

by Sky Kalkman on Oct 15, 2009 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Pennants Added!!!!!!!

C’mon Sky, give in!

by vivaelpujols on Oct 15, 2009 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions

Personally, I think that's worse than total WAR -- will reward mediocrity over achieving some great seasons.

I get that it means a player did more to help his teams get to the playoffs, but I don’t think that’s a great measure of how talented a player was.

In math geek terms, a WAR graph with emphasis on the best seasons is using exponential WAR. Total WAR uses linear WAR. Pennants added is using WAR to an exponent between 0 and 1, knocking down the value of each additional WAR in a given season.

Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.

by Sky Kalkman on Oct 15, 2009 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions

Actually Sky

It turns out that in most era’s Pennants Added actually rewards high WAR exponentially more than lower WAR in most era’s. Have you read my study at Driveline Mechanics?

http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/2009/6/9/902046/pennants-added-and-the-hall-of

Here is the key graphic:

Only the 14,4 and 16,4 league formats, which are the current league formats in the NL and AL, don’t give a bonus to better WAR. The 14,2 league format and the 12,2 league format give slight bonus’ to higher WAR at the high levels; and the 10,1 (which was in existence for 50 years) gives a very high bonus.

I should have an article at THT soon, using a slightly different methodology to determine Pennants Added by era, and the multiplying each of those by the frequency of games played in that era. I suspect it will end up giving a pretty large bonus to better players, but we’ll have to find out.

by vivaelpujols on Oct 15, 2009 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions