Ken Griffey, Jr. & the Best Player in Baseball
Ken Griffey, Jr., retired yesterday evening, mere hours before the Mariners were set to host the Twins. The announcement may have been unexpected in its timing, but the decision was not. Griffey just wasn't getting the playing time he expected and, in the little time he was getting, he just wasn't all that effective.
It wasn't always like this, of course. From his rookie year in 1989 through his first year as a member of the Cincinnati Reds in 2000, Griffey was widely considered one of the best players in baseball, if not the best. In 1999, when Major League Baseball and its fans chose their All-Century roster, Griffey was there, beating out the likes of Barry Bonds, Stan Musial, and Frank Robinson, to name a few. He was the face of baseball for a decade and, when he won his MVP award in 1997, it felt like he was certain to win many more.
But was Griffey ever truly the best player in baseball? After all, this was at the same time that Greg Maddux, Roger Clemens, and Randy Johnson were doing things on the pitcher's mound that we hadn't seen in decades. It was also the time that Barry Bonds was putting together some of the finest all-around seasons ever, even before he bulked up to incredible sizes and started mashing record-numbers of home runs.
Earlier this year, over at Wezen-Ball, I revisited a project I had seen Bill James do to determine who the best player in baseball was for any given year. The idea was to average a player's last four years of production (on a 10-20-30-40 scale, with 40 being the most recent year) and compare him to his contemporaries. In Bill's original study, he used Win Shares; in my version, I used Rally's WAR.
You can find the full post here (it covered every year from 1904 through 2009). What I'm interested in focusing on here is the 1991 through 2009 years, or the "Bonds & Pujols Era".
Griffey debuts on the chart in 1993 (it is a four-year average, after all) as the second best player in baseball, with a weighted WAR of 6.94. Bonds is first with a 9.87 weighted WAR. (View the raw data here) The numbers are similar in 1994 (Bonds 8.57 vs. Griffey 7.0), but Griffey's injured 1995 drops him off the list. He reappears on the list in 1996 in the number four slot. Considering that the '95 season is weighted nearly as much as the '96 campaign, this is pretty impressive.
The 1997 MVP season brings Griffey closest to the "Best Player in Baseball" title that he'll ever be, with a weighted average of 8.03 WAR to Bonds' 8.86. Again, the injured '95 campaign is still a prominent component here. If he had been able to put up a healthy WAR value that year, we might have seen him steal the title from Bonds by now. He falls to third after the 1998 season, with Roger Clemens' second consecutive Cy Young season (and fifth overall) overtaking Griffey for the second spot. That's the last time he'll appear on the list, after his 48-home run, 139 OPS+ campaign in 1999 only netted 4.8 WAR.
According to this method, there was never a time where you could consider Griffey the best player in baseball. Of course, he had to compete against Barry Bonds every year of his career, and those mid-to-late '90s seasons from Maddux and Clemens and the like were killer. More importantly, Griffey's age-25 season was cut short by injury, ruining his four-year weighted average from ages 25 through 28. If his 3.5 WAR in 72 games were extrapolated to the full 140+-game season, he easily could have challenged Bonds for the top spot in 1997.
But just because Griffey could never be empirically considered the single-best player in baseball doesn't take anything away from him. Not only was he unlucky enough to be competing head-to-head with one of the top five greatest players of all time, he also had to compete against some of the greatest pitchers the game has ever seen. It's no sin to be considered the second-best player of your time when you have to work against that.
What's more, the nitpicking of comparing a four-year weighted average of 8.03 vs. one of 8.86, for example, will never take away our memories of a slick-fielding, sweet-swinging, charismatic clubhouse leader who took over the public consciousness at the age of 18 and didn't let go for 10 years. Griffey was a fantastic player and a joy to watch. I'm glad he was able to call it quits on his own.
24 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Any chance of a similar graph with WAR prorated across 700 PAs?
Or however many you do for a full season.
That’s not a bad idea. What would I use as the baseline for pitchers? 35 starts?
==
Check out Wezen-Ball.com
by lar on Jun 3, 2010 9:00 AM EDT up reply actions
I had a student in my baseball class argue that Griffey was the best player of the '90's
I referred him to your best player in baseball graph posts, noting that he’d have a hard time dealing with Bonds. He countered with steroids, but that doesn’t work well because most folks have Bonds’ juicing starting around 2001.
Still, if Bonds is among the best 3 players who ever played (and arguably is the best), playing second-fiddle to him is nothing to scoff at. And I think there’s something to be said for Griffey meaning more to the game than his numbers—he really was a joy to watch.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
I had a student in my baseball class
All kinds of awesome right there. What kind of class?
On Twitter: @baseballtwit
It was called the Science of Baseball
I wrote a bit about it here:
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/12/17/1200459/want-to-help-me-plan-my-baseball
It wasn’t really hard core (had to go light on the math given the student population, unfortunately), but it was fun. Did some endocrinology (PED’s), game theory (strategy), physics (curve balls, fly balls, etc), and a bit of classic sabermetric type stuff on player value.
At some point I’m going to do a write-up on the class. I learned a lot. Some baseball, but mostly about what does and doesn’t stoke the fancy of a general population of students…
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Exactly.
It’s hard to be the best player in the game when you have to deal with your debut coming during the primes of a Wagner, Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Mays or Bonds. I’m happy more people are starting to put this “Griffey was the best player in the game” thing to rest, but that’s absolutely not any disrespect to how great Junior was. He just happened to play with some guys who were even greater.
Hey all,
I’m a big hockey fan, and I’ve gotten into the advanced hockey stats culture and have been really enjoying it these past couple of months. I’ve never been big into baseball (the Pirates are my team) but I’d like to know more about the advanced stats you guys use. Are there any good websites or posts in this blog that would be good for a guy starting out?
Pittsburgh sports all the way
This is a question worthy of its own post.
There are loads of sites around. Baseball-reference.com, baseballprospectus.com, fangraphs.com, hardballtimes.com, insidethebook.com are probably some of the more popular ones.
Baseball-reference.com has a good glossary with pop-ups over each stat heading with explanatory text. Baseball Prospectus has a good glossary for their terms as well.
Thanks a lot for the info jwis. I think I’ll take you up on your offer and make a fan post out of this.
Pittsburgh sports all the way
Fangraphs...
Fangraphs is one of the better places for more casual consumption of the advanced stats, the Book Blog is, frankly, one of the centers of original thought in Sabermetrics today, so it can be heavy going!
But beyond that, there are some excellent primers around. I’m sure someone not at work could link you to a few…
And welcome!
One thing this chart doesn't take into account.
Steroids. We know Clemens used. Only a fool would think Bonds didn’t use. But we haven’t seen any evidence suggesting Griffey used. Until we do, he’s the best player of his generation.
…thanks? I think this chart does a good job of highlighting that Griffey was very good, but never the best player in baseball, like the author points out. He was voted onto the “All-Century” team over better players, likely for popularity reasons, and while nobody would say he wasn’t pretty deserving….there were clearly better options. Someone like Bonds was just flat out amazing, no matter what time period you want to look at.
But just because Griffey could never be empirically considered the single-best player in baseball doesn’t take anything away from him. Not only was he unlucky enough to be competing head-to-head with one of the top five greatest players of all time, he also had to compete against some of the greatest pitchers the game has ever seen. It’s no sin to be considered the second-best player of your time when you have to work against that.
Yep, think that sums it up well. No need to try to rewrite history to conform to our biases.
by Missing Barry on Jun 3, 2010 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Even when I was 14, the All-Century team seemed like a joke to me.
The farther I get from it, the more idiotic it looks. Wade Boggs wasn’t even a candidate.
As far as the Best Player in Baseball project, I was just looking at that yesterday.
I still want someone to reproduce that with Rally’s WAR.
Oh, I see you already did that.
Yay, I don’t have to do it myself!
Question, though. I believe when Baseball Prospectus did it, they took gave the following year some weight and removed the third year prior. To me, that makes some sense because I would consider “what you will do” as part of being the best, almost as much as “what you’ve already done.” Any thoughts on doing something like that?
I've definitely considered that
… just never did it. I’ll see if I can get around to doing it, as well as the per-700-PA run that jwiscarson suggested above. I’m not sure if I can get to them tonight (looks like a busy night ahead), but I’ll try.
I’d be surprised to see much change between the method above and the method you suggest. When I did a run of the data but weighted it 40-30-20-10 for the next four years, the changes were minimal. But it could definitely be meaningful to Griffey. The sooner you can throw out his ’95 season, the better things look.
==
Check out Wezen-Ball.com
by lar on Jun 3, 2010 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Interesting.
BTW, I meant for all time, not just for Griffey. Not exactly asking you to do it, I’d just be interested in it.
Griffey may never have been the best player in baseball statistically.
But he was the player most people were willing to pay to see play. And then with Randy Johnson on the mound every fifth day, there was a reason why the Kingdome got such a reputation as being a difficult place to go into. Those crowds were amazing and it is crazy to look at the Mariners roster from 1995-1999 and wonder how those teams did not win a single championship. Trading Tino Martinez after the 1995 season might have been the difference (and look what he did for the Yankees).
Thanks for doing this piece on Griffey.

by 



















