Graph of the Day: Gwynn vs. Edgar vs. Raines vs. Schilling
One first ballot Hall of Famer vs. a handful of guys no one seems sure of.
WAR data provided by Sean Smith's Magical Historical WAR Database of Wonder and Awe at BaseballProjection.com.
24 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This is one of the best WAR graphs in quite a while
As I got more into baseball stats I got the feeling about Gwynn that he was elected more for interesting achievements (wow, those are some high batting averages!) than for actually being a first-ballot-caliber player. I’m not sure if this makes me more or less sure of that assumption, but it does make me think again about it. I mean, does this graph do more to support Gwynn’s case or to support the other three?
I think it 2/3 supports the other three and 1/3 points out that Gwynn is more on the borderline than people realize.
Borderline in mostly likely, but borderline nonetheless.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
I guess you're probably right for most people
But I had begun to assume that Gwynn was noticeably less of a surefire HOFer than, say, somebody like Raines. So for me this actually reminds me of how good Gwynn was. I’m not sure exactly why I had begun to think less of Gwynn, perhaps I just hadn’t looked at his career very closely before.
i was surprised by edgar martinez
he was getting hit with a pretty big positional adjustment being a DH and all, and he didn’t get a regular place in the lineup until he was 27.
Here are the 4 with their total WAR and Winshares
Name WAR WinShares
Gwynn 68.7 398
Edgar 70.7 390
Raines 69.5 305
Schilling 69.8 254
These numbers show the difference in WS vs WAR systems in that WS value defense much more than WAR. Positional players (Gwynn and Raines) get more of the share of the Winshares than DH’s (Edgar) and Pitchers (Schilling) compared to WAR
Are the Edgar and Raines WS numbers correct?
If so, WS is giving Edgar the DH way more credit than Raines the non-DH…
But yes, the point that Win Shares wrongly kills pitcher value can’t be made enough.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Edgar and Raines WS numbers are swithed
Raines and Gwynn get ~50 WS for their fielding and Edgar gets ~10
by Jeff Zimmerman on May 6, 2009 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the answer....
to Sky’s question is a difference in what a Replacement Level player is in both systems… Any system with a lower replacement level will yield higher numbers for players who stick around playing mediocre ball for many years.
Consider this way oversimplified hypothetical: 2 players, one (player A) plays three years and creates 100 runs (30, 40, 30) and another (player B) who plays 5 years and creates 140 runs (30,40,30,20,20). Now if the replacement level player is considered to be one who creates 20 runs per year, then player A’s runs above replacement would be 10+20+10 or 40. Player B’s runs above replacement would be 10+20+10+0+0, also 40! But who says 20 is the correct answer? Different methods use different standards for finding a replacement level performance. Say another method thinks replacement performance is actually 10. Player A in that scenario gets 20+30+20 or 70 and Player B gets 20+30+20+10+10 or 90!
In other words even using the same metrics to calculate the amount of “absolute” value a player has, if there is a difference in the math of how to calculate the “relative” value, the one with a lower relative comparator will benefit more those with longer careers. This is very frequently a key factor in differences in career win above replacement metrics, be it Win Shares, or any number of WAR formula.
All true.
WS has many flaws and this is one of them. Including loss shares helps a bit.
The replacement level used by WAR is “right” in the sense that it actually shows what talent level is readily replaceable and is the level above which players deserve to be paid anything.
For other questions, like HoF greatness, you might want to use a different baseline, or make WAR non-linear.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
What charting Gwynn's career numbers shows you
I’ve seen lots of different displays of Gwynn’s various numbers, including WAR, versus other players. This graph might be one of the best ones.
Looking at Gwynn’s numbers relative to other players when asking the question, “Who goes into the Hall of Fame?” is probably one of the single best pieces of evidence to support the case that the Baseball Hall of Fame celebrates far, far more than on-field numbers. Consistently, WAR graphs including Gwynn make him look like a “borderline hall of famer.” As an earlier commenter indicated, Gwynn was indeed elected in – especially with such a high percentage – for reasons beyond just his numbers.
Exploring those other reasons would kind of be a fun conversation. Among the many qualities Gwynn demonstrated that Baseball loves to celebrate was his honesty, especially regarding the steroid issues. In a decade of Baseball marred by news of steroid usage among some of Baseball’s most beloved and highest profile players, what better message to send to the world than to take two guys who embody the intangibles – Gwynn and Ripken – and vote them in with high 90s percentages.
In protest of adulthood
One thing sabermetrics has yet to grapple with
In lieu of Bradicus’ comment…
How do you account for someone’s status as the “face of the franchise”? To me, that’s what separates Gwynn from this group. Though I’m also one who thinks Raines should be in and wonder what Edgar Martinez would have done in WAR had he played in the field more, even if only at 1B.
I don't necessarily thing stats have to grapple with whether or not someone is the face of a franchise and other such things.
But I also don’t think things like the Hall of Fame should be limited to a statistical formula. The stats should weigh heavily, but there’s still a judgement call there. And, I agree with you, I would put Gwynn (or maybe Schilling) in first and Martinez in last out of that group based on those judgement calls of other “stuff” that I think matters. That’s different from who I’d put on my team first.
I’d put them all in, though, so it’s mostly irrelevant.
I have been working on predicting HOF voting
and one factor that is there for sure is All-Star Game appearances:
Gwynn: 15
Raines: 7
Edgar: 7
Curt: 6
Is that a cause, or just a way to measure whether fans and writers happen to "like" a certain player?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
One thing that could enhance this graph for me
Would be including a player whom you would consider exceptional in this regard and one player whom you would consider to be just slightly above replacement (although I know it’s hard for a replacement player to have that long of a career) to provide baselines. That would help me put this info in context.
It would be enhanced if I saw a picture of a Husky in the background
The artist formerly known as "mlbnotebook".
MLB Notebook.com
Roto Rat.com
by Zach Sanders on May 6, 2009 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, for what it's worth, here you go.

Not particularly fair to Gwynn, of course, because you’ve got one of the most upper-crust careers every in Bonds, and then one not far behind in Aaron. Gwynn is merely a guy who probably belonged in the Hall of Fame. But if that gives you some idea of how Gwynn’s career compares to the most elite, that’s a good picture.
That's a good idea.
Maybe some careers covering a wide range of talents could be put in the background of all WAR graphs?
Or make the average, all-star, MVP candidate, etc. vertical levels more obvious. Labels?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by 




















