Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Most Dangerous Division in Sports

wWAR: Applying Extra Credit for "Peak" to Wins Above Replacement

WAR is awesome.

For a Hall of Fame guy like me, it's pretty much the best thing ever. I'm constantly looking for a way to rank players historically. So, WAR come along and does the park adjustment, era adjustment, and park adjustments for us. It's almost too easy.

Of course, WAR isn't quite the perfect benchmark that definitively tells us one player is more deserving than another of Hall of Fame induction. It merely tells us that according to the WAR framework, that player provided more value over the course of his entire career.

Not all careers follow the same path, though. There are "compilers" who slowly and steadily improve their WAR totals and finish with excellent numbers. There are also "peak" guys who dominate and accrue similar value over a much shorter period of time. If these two players finished with the same career WAR, who has the better chance of induction?

While career value is nice (and I'm a compiler sympathizer, if that's a thing), voting trends tend to favor the guy with the "peak". Voters want a guy who was the best at his position for a certain period of time. Quiet consistency is boring. They want Ryne Sandberg (62.1 WAR) and not Lou Whitaker (69.7 WAR).

So, let's adjust WAR to favor peak years. We already track Wins Above Excellence (single season WAR above 3.0) and Wins Above MVP (single season WAR above 6.0). We'll apply the extra credit there. We'll count WAR above 3.0 twice and WAR above 6.0 three times. Let's call it Weighted WAR (wWAR). The formula is simply WAR+WAE+WAM.

Here's what all Hall of Fame position players look like, with the players in this year's ballot mixed in (in green):

Weighted_war__wwar__1293425320696_medium

Click for full version.

Star-divide

For a specific example, let's look at Ed Delahanty and Paul Molitor.

Delahanty-molitor_medium

Their career WAR is basically the same (74.8 for Molitor, 74.7 for Delahanty). But Delahanty edges Molitor in WAE (40.9 to 22.8) and WAR (a whopping 12.7 to 1.1). As a result, Delahanty trumps Molitor in wWAR, 128.3 to 98.7.

How about the players on this year's ballot? As expected, Jeff Bagwell is again far ahead of the pack. The question shouldn't be if he will get inducted or not. It should be a question of where this guy ranks among the very best players of his era. And once again, Edgar Martinez, Alan Trammell, Barry Larkin, Larry Walker, Roberto Alomar, Mark McGwire, Tim Raines, and Rafael Palmeiro all rate above the Hall of Fame median. John Olerud, again, sits just below it. This doesn't really change my opinion of this year's ballot—it just merely further confirms what I already felt was true.

Does anything stand out to you?

(All WAR data from Baseball-Reference.)

Update: (3/15/2011) I just posted the last of a series of articles where I created the "Hall of wWAR". I re-populated the Hall of Fame based purely on wWAR. Have a look!

The Hall of wWAR
Catchers | First Basemen | Second Basemen | Third Basemen | Shortstops
Left Fielders | Center Fielders | Right Fielders | Designated Hitters
Pitchers

Comment 16 comments  |  3 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Yes!

Seems more logical to me to given peak credit for every season above a certain threshold instead of for the best X number of seasons.

by Sky Kalkman on Dec 27, 2010 8:45 AM EST reply actions  

I don't think I understand this statement.

Did you mean “median” when you wrote “my” or is there something I don’t know here?

by Patrick42 on Dec 27, 2010 9:22 AM EST up reply actions  

"My"

Eyeballing it, Boggs has less than half of Ruth’s wWAR. I have 0 WAR. So my total is closer to Boggs’ than his is to Ruth’s.

by Sky Kalkman on Dec 27, 2010 10:03 AM EST up reply actions  

Ohhhh. OK.

Just a bit slow this morning. I get it.

by Patrick42 on Dec 27, 2010 10:05 AM EST up reply actions  

Great post and visual!

I like the idea of trying to weight the measure for peak performance. You still have to worry about 1 or 2 amazing seasons skewing a player’s score though, especially since you are giving such weight to WAE and WAM seasons.

Why not alter the weighting a bit—instead of WAE being worth 200% of WAR and WAM 300%, how about an index approach. Multiply the number of seasons of regular WAR (0-2.9) by .2, the number of WAE seasons (3.0-5.9) by .25, and the number of WAM seasons (>=6.0) by .3 to get what you might call an Excellence Consistency score. Then, multiply total WAR by .25 and add the terms together for your index. This gives weight to better performance, but trys to account for players that have excellence over more seasons. Did something similar with fantasy football and it seems to identify value really well.

Not sure if the weights are right, but I think the approach could be interesting. Would be curious to see how it might alter the rankings.

by Bill Petti on Dec 27, 2010 9:00 AM EST reply actions  

Interesting...

I like to keep things simple, but it would be fun to run this to see what I can get.

Wonder what I can send Sean Forman to convince him to put WAE and WAM in the Play Index. A plate of delicious snacks perhaps?

On Twitter: @baseballtwit

by adarowski on Dec 27, 2010 3:24 PM EST up reply actions  

You could also use this concept for individual player seasons.

Do a WAR graph but with columns, and make the columns higher based on this WAE/WAM extra credit.

by Sky Kalkman on Dec 27, 2010 9:20 AM EST reply actions  

I want to see a Pujols vs Gehrig graph of that

Just because there was some JAWS discussion of the two on Twitter.

by CajoleJuice on Dec 27, 2010 10:54 AM EST up reply actions  

Can’t wait to see the pitcher list, and would like to see where Blyleven rates.

by craigtyle on Dec 27, 2010 12:11 PM EST reply actions  

Me too, even though it's problematic.

Those 1800s starting pitchers piled up WAM like crazy since they started so many darn games. But hey, I’m cool with seeing Old Hoss near the top of the list, provided it comes with a caveat.

On Twitter: @baseballtwit

by adarowski on Dec 27, 2010 3:26 PM EST up reply actions  

Just because

So by this method Will Clark would have a wWAR of 107 using fWAR, given that guys like Molitor are in with a wWAR of 98.7, does he belong in the HOF? My vote would be for yes, given the relatively young age which he retired at, but interested to hear others thoughts.

"I throw as hard as I can when I think I have to throw as hard as I can." - Walter Johnson
*Formerly known as Giant Torture

by Pig.Pen on Dec 28, 2010 1:08 PM EST reply actions  

I'd love to look more at past snubs by this metric—and plan to.

Will Clark really might be a Hall of Famer. I think he was vastly underrated by the Writers. He should not have been one-and-done.

On Twitter: @baseballtwit

by adarowski on Dec 28, 2010 1:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Great work

Could this be posted as an excel file? I would love to play around with it.

by cookiedabookie on Dec 30, 2010 10:52 AM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

We use numbers and stuff.
Community Guidelines
Why be a member?

Follow us on Facebook!

Follow us on Twitter!

SaberGraphics

Yahoo_full_count

MLB Daily Dish

Get the latest MLB Trade Rumors, Transactions, and News at MLB Daily Dish!


Managing Editor:

Jbopp-kc_small Justin Bopp

Columnists:

Adam_small adarowski

Dme_small Satchel Price

Closeup4_small J-Doug

Carlosicon_small Julian Levine

Billy_and_daddy_4th_of_july_small Bill Petti

Featuring:

Dayton_small Jeff Zimmerman

12475953_small Jacob Peterson

Recent_pic_pg_small Patrick Gordon

Btbpro_small Dave Gershman

Me_small Bryan Grosnick

229331_10150183361996591_674441590_6760167_6637860_n3_small Lewie Pollis

Img_3830_small David Fung

30472_1481067225243_1190689185_1381415_997334_n_small Glenn DuPaul

1mnvxku7_small joshuaworn

Set_small MattFilippi18

Photo0011_small Nathaniel Stoltz