Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Trent Richardson Interviews Fellow Brown Brandon Weeden

The Hall of wWAR: Catchers

Hall-of-wwar-c_medium

I originally got into baseball research because of my lifelong affection towards catchers. After looking at Lance Parrish's stats, I figured he should be a Hall of Famer. I started digging deeper, and though I no longer believe Parrish should be elected (turns out I had the wrong Tiger all along), in many ways the Hall of wWAR "completes" what I set out to do that very day.

Catchers, while not as criminally overlooked as third basemen, are under-represented in the Hall of Fame. I assumed this process would bump a few out while welcoming a pretty substantial new crew. I've had a half-dozen catchers I've felt strongly about for the Hall of Fame for quite some time (at least, since correcting my earlier Parrishian instincts). Today, I welcome a half dozen catchers into the Hall of wWAR, but one from my Original 6 (Wally Schang) didn't quite make the cut.

Star-divide

Who's Out?

These three players are in the Hall of Fame, but did not make it into the Hall of wWAR:

  • Ernie Lombardi: A career .306 hitter with a pair of batting titles (the only catcher to achieve this until Joe Mauer came along)? How does he get bumped? It's true—Ernie Lombardi was a very good hitter (for a catcher). He loses a couple of wins defensively, but that's somewhat expected for a great-hitting catcher. Lombardi's speed—or lack thereof—is legendary. It seems that with Hall of Fame voting, something like horrendous baserunning is just shrugged off because it is not reflected in raw stats (sure he got fewer infield hits and legged out fewer doubles, but bad baserunning affects things more deeply than that). WAR takes this stuff seriously, docking Lombardi 41 runs for his baserunning. As he was worth 191 runs with his bat, he gives back over 21% of his offensive value by running so poorly. And that is what bumps him from the Hall of wWAR.
  • Ray Schalk: The stat geek in me can't stand that Ray Schalk is in the Hall of Fame. He had a .656 OPS. He was worth 22.6 WAR. He collected just 1345 hits. Any way you look at it, he appears to be an awful choice. His 46 runs on defense are nice, but seem to be very low compared with how he was regarded during his career. But from 1910 to 1930, just one catcher provided more value than Schalk. That was Schang. Still, while Schalk may have been among the best catchers of his day, he still wasn't good enough for the Hall.
  • Rick Ferrell: This one just makes no sense. At least Schalk actually reached three wins at one point in his career. Ferrell is in the Hall of Fame with a Wins Above Excellence of zero. He is the only Hall of Fame position player who can make that claim. Even giving Ferrell the most generous sample size and fetching only catcher WAR from his career (1929–1947), he still ranks fifth in WAR behind Bill Dickey, Mickey Cochrane, Lombardi, and Gabby Hartnett.

Who's In?

These six players are not in the Hall of Fame, but are now being inducted to the Hall of wWAR:

  • Joe Torre: Joe Torre is going to be the next John McGraw. What? Baseball history buffs know McGraw as the Hall of Fame manager who won ten pennants and three World Series titles while managing the New York Giants for 31 years. It is easy to forget that McGraw had a staggering .334/.466/.410 batting line (135 OPS+) as a third baseman, though. His incredible—and probably Hall-worthy—playing career is forgotten because he was inducted as a manager. The same is going to happen to Torre, and it's too bad, because he was a Hall of Fame player. Torre is sometimes dismissed as a catcher because he only played 41% of his games behind the plate. It's still the position he played the most, and even with the position adjustments applied for playing elsewhere he clears the basic threshold for the Hall of wWAR. I lower the standards for catchers (since they have a hard time accumulating WAR because of days off in-season and shorter careers in general). But Torre gets in without the standards lowered.
  • Ted Simmons: Considering how few Hall of Fame catchers there are, it is quite puzzling that Simmons is not enshrined. While advanced metrics rate him well, he actually looks even better by traditional counting numbers. His totals of 2472 hits, 483 doubles, 248 home runs, 1389 RBI, and a .285 batting average are remarkable for a catcher. Simmons compiled 50.4 WAR in his career, ninth among eligible catchers (had he quit five seasons earlier, he actually would have had an even more impressive career WAR of 53.2). Simmons had a decent peak that boosts his wWAR to 67.5, eighth among eligible catchers. I've never seen a good reason for why he's not in.
  • Gene Tenace: Torre and Simmons are frequently discussed as Hall of Fame snubs. This is because they deserve induction even if you don’t adjust for the egregious lack of catchers in the Hall of Fame. But if you, like me, think there are too few catchers in the Hall, then you need to populate it with the next tier. And while the next tier is still very solid, it doesn’t get nearly as much publicity. The leader of this next group of catchers is Gene Tenace. Like Simmons, Tenace fell off the Hall of Fame ballot after one attempt. That’s not entirely surprising—.241 hitters with 1060 career hits don’t typically knock down the Hall of Fame walls. But Tenace was way ahead of his time. His OBP (.388) was a full .147 higher than his batting average. Among catchers with 3000 PAs, only Schang, Mauer, and Mickey Cochrane boast a higher OBP. And despite just 5525 plate appearances, Tenace smacked 200 homers. While his playing time was quite low for a Hall of Famer, the value was there. In his eight seasons as a starter, he compiled 40.5 of his 48.7 WAR. Only five Hall of Fame position players have less than Tenace's 5525 plate appearances—and Tenace out WAR'd all of them. In fact, he out WAR'd the three players ahead of him, too. Add his excellent peak 16.5 WAE and he climbs up the list even more.
  • Thurman Munson: Munson's best Hall of Fame showing was his first—the year his five-year waiting period was waived because of his tragic death. While it made perfect sense to lift the waiting period for Lou Gehrig and Roberto Clemente, it probably wasn’t the best idea for a borderline candidate like Munson. Voters needed time to get past the tragedy of what happened and get a clear sense of perspective. They never had that chance. At first glance (.292 average, 1558 hits, 113 home runs), Munson seems to have the framework of a Hall of Fame career, but not enough playing time to fill it out. He was good enough, however, to still rank with the best dozen or so catchers of all time. That should be enough to get you enshrined. Munson recorded 43.4 WAR and added an excellent peak (14.3 WAE and 0.7 WAM) to give him a total of 58.4 wWAR (#12 among eligible catchers).
  • Bill Freehan: Freehan, from a value perspective, is incredibly similar to Munson. His 43.3 WAR is 0.1 behind Munson and his 57.7 wWAR (#13 among eligible catchers) is 0.7 behind him. Not that this is a great barometer of Hall-worthiness, but Freehan’s 11 All Star games are the most for an eligible player outside the Hall. He also won five Gold Gloves. Despite these accolades, three Top 10 MVP finishes, and several fielding records upon his retirement, he lasted just one year on the Hall of Fame ballot with just 0.5% of the vote. How is it that Freehan and Munson are so close in value while their statistics are so dissimilar? Well, they’re really not that dissimilar. Munson hit for more contact and Freehan hit for more power, but once you adjust for parks and eras, their offensive output is somewhat similar. In 5903 plate appearances, Munson was worth 116 runs above average (batting, reaching on error, and grounding into double plays), 10 runs on the bases, 32 Total Zone runs, and 75 runs for position. Freehan was worth 97 runs at the plate, –7 on the bases, 27 in the field, and 85 for his position. Distribute that over their playing time and compare it to the replacement level and you have essentially the same player. And they both should be in.
  • Darrell Porter: If Tenace, Munson, and Freehan hadn’t shocked you yet, Darrell Porter is the real eyebrow-raiser of the group. Darrell Porter is a player I never would have imagined as a Hall of Famer when I started this project. And the truth is, he probably doesn’t belong. His wWAR of 52.1 (#15 among eligible catchers) is heavily condensed into one season. In 1979, Porter was worth 8.4 WAR (therefore, 5.4 WAE, 2.4 WAM, and 16.2 wWAR). That amounts to 31% of his total wWAR coming from one season. That’s less Hall of Fame and more one-year wonder. Personally, I would have preferred to enshrine Schang, a 1920s backstop who was the best at his position for a time. Schang, owner of a .393 career OBP, fell short at 47.9 wWAR. This was one of the cases where I was a slave to the process—I couldn’t include Schang without including Porter, and in the end I really couldn’t justify including both. It’s not like Porter was a bad player. In addition to that 8.4 WAR season, he also had a 4.5 WAR year and four more over 3 WAR. His batting runs above average (104, when you include double plays and errors) is right around Munson and Freehan. Of course, 42 of those came in 1979. Porter is actually better than he looks, with an OBP (.354) .107 above his batting average (.247). Not quite Tenace-like, but impressive nonetheless. While I make light of Porter’s inclusion, he still rates ahead of Roger Bresnahan (who makes the Hall of wWAR as the last catcher) and the trio that was bumped from the Hall.

Who's Next?

These four players are either still active or retired and not yet eligible for the Hall, but have already met the threshold to be inducted to the Hall of wWAR:

  • Mike Piazza: While Piazza trails Pudge Rodriguez in WAR by 8.6 wins, he just barely leapfrogs him in wWAR thanks to his amazing peak. His wWAR of 89.6 places him third among catchers, behind just Johnny Bench and Gary Carter.
  • Ivan Rodriguez: Rodriguez is right behind Piazza with 88.9 wWAR. Both barely sneak in ahead of Carlton Fisk, who gets a much smaller boost from his peak.
  • Joe Mauer: Correct. If Joe Mauer never played another game, he would already be inducted to the Hall of wWAR. He slides in right behind Gene Tenace, ahead of Gabby Hartnett. If his next 3 1/2 seasons are like his last 3 1/2 seasons, he'll pass Bench for #1 all time. And he'll still be 31.
  • Jorge Posada: You don't hear the phrase "underrated Yankee" too often, but with Posada it's true. There aren't even many Yankee fans who see him as a Hall of Famer, it seems. But 59.7 wWAR catchers don't grow on trees.

Up next, first basemen!

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

Comment 31 comments  |  6 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Random, but Gene Tenace's career is absolutely fascinating

In 1974, he had a sub-Mendoza avg, but managed to produce 4.9 WAR, by far the most WAR in a single season by a player who hit below the Mendoza line. He did it by virtue of excellent BB% and ISO.

Also, Joe Mauer = a God. I really hope he stays healthy. He’s so talented, and I’d love to see him stick around for a long time…although he certainly doesn’t need a long career to have a solid HOF case.

I write a Giants blog...Splashing Pumpkins

by Julian Levine on Mar 7, 2011 12:08 PM EST reply actions  

You're right. Tenace is incredibly unique.

What’s crazy is he still piled up all that WAR despite playing a lot at lower-leverage positions. Remarkable.

On Twitter: @baseballtwit

by adarowski on Mar 7, 2011 12:19 PM EST up reply actions  

Wow

Totally didn’t realize how awesome he was. Nice job by Adam to mention him. How does McCann look?

by JD Sussman on Mar 7, 2011 12:37 PM EST up reply actions  

Also, I'm interested in the connection between Tenace and the 2010 Blue Jays.

He was their hitting coach, as some may know, and their style somewhat reflects his 1974 season. Low BABIP, good power, excellent plate discipline.

I write a Giants blog...Splashing Pumpkins

by Julian Levine on Mar 7, 2011 12:13 PM EST reply actions  

Excellent analysis and nice presentation

With respect to presentation, did you try other arrangements along the X axis? Since we’ve already got the playing years represented along the Y axis with the length of the bar, it seems you could order the players top to bottom in another way — perhaps by total WAR? That would make it easier to grasp at a glance who the best performers were. Might make for a slightly wackier looking graph, however.

Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
"ZIPS Is Indeed Supose To Science." --GRM

by delorean on Mar 7, 2011 12:16 PM EST reply actions  

I actually did do that once by accident.

And the graph was such a mess I thought it was a bug, not an ordering thing. But perhaps for individual positions like this, it could work.

On Twitter: @baseballtwit

by adarowski on Mar 7, 2011 12:21 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

I could definitely see how it might look jumbled.

Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
"ZIPS Is Indeed Supose To Science." --GRM

by delorean on Mar 7, 2011 12:34 PM EST up reply actions  

For the record, this is an OUTSTANDING

graphic, Adam. Perfect design — looks like it was lifted right out of a book or really slick magazine. I can’t wait to see how these look for every position.

by Justin Bopp on Mar 7, 2011 12:22 PM EST reply actions  

Love it

And the Simmons thing is quite puzzling.

This whole analysis leads me to another question—whether we should be providing greater weight not just to peak seasons, but to defensive WAR for certain positions.

WAR is adjusted for position, but not relatively speaking. You can be the best defensive catcher, but because defensive WAR seems to scale much lower than batting WAR it will always look like catcher’s are less valuable.

Might not make any sense, but I think it sorta does :)

Writer at Beyond the Box Score and tortured Mets fan (is there any other kind?)

by Bill Petti on Mar 7, 2011 12:58 PM EST reply actions  

The reason catchers are less valuable, by WAR and wWAR:

Catchers are given a positional adjustment. And they deserve it. But the problem is, they only get that adjustment for the time they spend on the diamond. Catchers typically get a day or two off every week. On those days, the’re not getting an adjustment because they’re not playing at all.

Add in the fact that catchers’ careers don’t last as long and that just adds more time that they’re not getting the adjustment. They’re getting and adjustment to account for the fact that it’s harder to catch than play left field. But they’re not getting one for the fact that it’s harder to catch EVERY DAY than play left field every day.

In a way, catchers are like relief pitchers. They suffer from suppressed playing time (IP for relievers, PA for catchers) and are given an adjustment for the time the ARE playing (LI for relievers, PosAdj for catchers). But neither gets anything for the time not spent on the field.

Should they? Probably not. But they both need to be viewed on different scales.

On Twitter: @baseballtwit

by adarowski on Mar 7, 2011 1:07 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm more in favor of "extra credit" for catchers than relief pitchers, but am unconvinced.

WAR probably has the most defensive trouble with catchers, too. Calling a game or otherwise getting the most out of a pitcher probably is a skill, but it’s damn tough to measure.

by Sky Kalkman on Mar 7, 2011 1:11 PM EST up reply actions  

Great point, wasn't considering the playing time issue

Makes me wonder if we need to scale WAR to games, etc, instead of seasons—although that opens up all sorts of other problems (I don’t think WAR over a single game makes much sense). Maybe all WAR should be scaled to 162 games for each season? That would make all positional players easier to evaluate in terms of apples to apples.

@Sky: I think that’s a great point. So much of what a catcher’s value is tied up in doesn’t easily lend itself to measurement. But there has to be some way to do it. I wonder if there is a proxy that can be used to get at it. Ideally you would look at differences in pitcher performance based on the catcher, but there aren’t enough N’s in a season for starters and backups to make a meaningful comparison.

Writer at Beyond the Box Score and tortured Mets fan (is there any other kind?)

by Bill Petti on Mar 7, 2011 1:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Without putting the catchers on a different scale...

… we’d have six in the Hall of wWAR: Bench, Carter, Fisk, Berra, Torre, Cochrane. (Piazza and Pudge would classify though.)

Without putting relievers on a different scale, we’d have none. (No other relievers—even Rivera—would classify.)

On Twitter: @baseballtwit

by adarowski on Mar 7, 2011 2:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Josh Gibson?

I understand that you’re just trying to look at wWAR, but aren’t you going to even attempt to look at guys like Josh Gibson? Gibson was very likely the greatest catcher who ever lived, and was arguably the most valuable player ever, at any position. (If I recall correctly, Bill James ranked him 9th overall, and the latest research by Simkus suggests that he’s even better than we thought he was.

At the very least, it wouldn’t be that hard to generate wWAR for Gibson using the MLEs that have already been generated for him. Take a look at his HOM induction thread for some of them:

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/josh_gibson

I understand that it will be easier to do this without considering guys like Gibson and Charleston, but it’s wrong — they were among the best players of all-time. It’s not their fault that they got screwed by discrimination.

by RM on Mar 7, 2011 1:10 PM EST reply actions  

Agreed, but how confident are we with using MLE's and negro league players?

I am honestly asking as this is the first time I’ve seen it.

Writer at Beyond the Box Score and tortured Mets fan (is there any other kind?)

by Bill Petti on Mar 7, 2011 1:18 PM EST up reply actions  

If somebody can convert these to WAR, I'd be happy to take a look.
At the very least, it wouldn’t be that hard to generate wWAR for Gibson using the MLEs that have already been generated for him.

In this case, you are a smarter man than I. I would have no idea where to start.

On Twitter: @baseballtwit

by adarowski on Mar 7, 2011 1:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Here's one attempt

Here’s one attempt from the thread I posted:

Year SFrac BWAA FWAA Replc WARP
1931 0.82 3.0 -0.5 -1.7 +4.2
1932 0.73 2.0 -0.5 -1.4 +3.0
1933 0.83 5.3 -0.2 -1.7 +6.7
1934 0.76 2.4 -0.2 -1.4 +3.7
1935 0.81 4.4 0.0 -1.5 +5.9
1936 0.82 5.6 0.1 -1.6 +7.2
1937 0.81 8.6 0.0 -1.6 +10.2
1938 0.69 4.7 0.0 -1.3 +6.1
1939 0.80 7.3 0.2 -1.5 +9.0
1940 0.72 7.0 0.1 -1.4 +8.4
1941 0.85 7.3 0.3 -1.6 +9.2
1942 0.73 6.1 0.0 -1.3 +7.4
1943 0.57 5.6 -0.4 -1.0 +6.2
1944 0.77 4.4 -0.7 -1.3 +5.1
1945 0.78 4.6 -0.9 -1.3 +5.0
1946 0.60 6.4 -0.6 -1.0 +6.8
TOTL 12.08 84.6 -3.1 -22.5 104.1

And here’s Win Shares:

Year Team BWS FWS Total
1931 Home 17.1 3.8 20.9
1932 Pgh 12.3 3.0 15.3
1933 Home 25.0 4.4 29.4
1934 Pgh 12.8 4.3 17.1
1935 24.5 5.3 29.8
1936 28.4 5.6 34.0
1937 Home 34.3 5.7 40.0
1938 17.9 4.9 22.8
1939 30.0 6.1 36.1
1940 MeL 28.0 4.8 32.8
1941 MeL 34.2 6.8 41.0
1942 Home 29.4 4.6 34.0
1943 23.4 2.7 26.1
1944 27.7 3.6 31.3
1945 25.3 2.8 28.1
1946 27.8 1.4 29.2
398.1 69.8 467.9

That’s like 100 more Win Shares than Johnny Bench.

by RM on Mar 7, 2011 8:52 PM EST up reply actions  

In this context, how does WARP relate to rWAR?

Does this WARP have TZ? Positional Adjustments? Curious about the inputs so I can see how they compare.

Thanks!

On Twitter: @baseballtwit

by adarowski on Mar 7, 2011 9:05 PM EST up reply actions  

Dan Rosenheck

Dan Rosenheck is the guy who came up with that WARP calculation. His methodology (and full results) can be found at:

http://www.tangotiger.net/rosenheck/

by RM on Mar 7, 2011 9:13 PM EST up reply actions  

Also

It does adjust for position (“Replace”) and for fielding (FWAA = Fielding Wins Above Average).

by RM on Mar 7, 2011 9:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Thank you for this.

Perhaps this is just the first installment of the Hall of wWAR. Would love to add Negro League guys. This is a huge start.

Thanks again.

On Twitter: @baseballtwit

by adarowski on Mar 7, 2011 9:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Also, I totally meant to include something about this in the opening post,

but apparently it was left in the first draft. So, I’ve added this:

I can’t include Negro League players. This all relies on WAR, and there is no WAR for Negro League players. Trust me, I wish there was. Maybe it can be calculated from MLEs. If so, somebody please do it. I’m no mathematician. I would love to include guys like Josh Gibson but I am just completely unable to since this is a 99% objective process by wWAR and I simply have no way of generating wWAR for them.

You say it’s “wrong”. I say it’s just not possible. It’s like ranking 1900s players by Caught Stealing. I just don’t have the data.

On Twitter: @baseballtwit

by adarowski on Mar 7, 2011 1:34 PM EST up reply actions  

From the thread in my original post:

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/josh_gibson

Here’s the MLEs in one post, from Chris Cobb, one of the smartest Hall of Merit voters:

Year Team EqG^ PA BB Hits TB BA OBP SA
(1930 Home 55 209 21 49 76 .260 .336 .405)
1931 132 533 60 139 243 .293 .372 .512
1932 Pgh 117 475 55 122 193 .291 .373 .459
1933 Home 130 526 65 142 253 .309 .394 .548
1934 Pgh 120 488 63 123 206 .289 .381 .485
1935 131 528 74 146 252 .323 .418 .556
1936 134 542 81 147 287 .320 .421 .623
1937 Home*126 524 81 172 319 .387 .482 .721
1938 108 444 71 126 206 .338 .444 .552
1939 127 513 84 144 311 .336 .445 .725
1940 MeL**114 471 81 140 262 .359 .469 .670
1941 MeL 138 554 95 155 287 .338 .452 .624
1942 Home 114 465 81 123 224 .320 .439 .584
1943 90 371 66 112 195 .367 .480 .639
1944 122 506 91 133 231 .321 .443 .556
1945 130 509 92 130 255 .312 .436 .610
1946 97 389 71 110 219 .346 .465 .689
Total# 1930 7837 1210 2165 3941 .327 .431 .595

Here’s more data, from David Foss, in the same thread:

-First you have Year, Team(s), PA.
-Second you have Chris’s MLE’s
-Third, in parentheses, you have pitchers-removed offense context. MLB for the 20s, then NL
-Fourth, you have AVG+/OBP+/SLG+
-Lastly, is the OPS+


1930 Home 209 0.260/0.335/0.405 (0.312/0.370/0.464) 83/ 91/ 87 78
1931 Home 533 0.293/0.373/0.512 (0.285/0.344/0.403) 103/109/127 136
1932 Pgh 475 0.291/0.373/0.459 (0.284/0.337/0.412) 102/111/111 122
1933 Home 526 0.309/0.394/0.548 (0.274/0.327/0.376) 113/120/146 166
1934 Pgh 488 0.289/0.381/0.485 (0.287/0.342/0.408) 101/111/119 130
1935 Pgh 528 0.323/0.417/0.556 (0.286/0.341/0.407) 113/122/137 159
1936 Pgh 542 0.320/0.421/0.623 (0.286/0.345/0.400) 112/122/156 178
1937 Home* 524 0.387/0.483/0.721 (0.280/0.342/0.397) 138/141/182 223
1938 Home 444 0.338/0.444/0.552 (0.275/0.339/0.391) 123/131/141 172
1939 Home 513 0.336/0.444/0.725 (0.280/0.346/0.401) 120/128/181 209
1940 MeL** 471 0.359/0.469/0.670 (0.272/0.337/0.391) 132/139/171 211
1941 MeL 554 0.338/0.451/0.624 (0.266/0.337/0.375) 127/134/166 200
1942 Home 465 0.320/0.439/0.584 (0.256/0.328/0.356) 125/134/164 198
1943 Home 371 0.367/0.480/0.639 (0.265/0.334/0.360) 138/144/178 221
1944 Home 506 0.321/0.443/0.556 (0.268/0.335/0.377) 120/132/147 180
1945 Home 509 0.312/0.436/0.610 (0.273/0.343/0.377) 114/127/162 189
1946 Home 389 0.346/0.465/0.689 (0.263/0.338/0.368) 132/138/187 225

To give you a sense of where Josh Gibson’s OPS+ would rank:

RANK__NAME__________CAREER OPS+
1.Babe Ruth_________207
2.Ted Williams______190
3.Barry Bonds_______184
(JOSH GIBSON MLE180)
4.
Lou Gehrig_________179
5.Rogers Hornsby____175
6.Mickey Mantle_____172
7.Dan Brouthers_____170
_Joe Jackson______170
9.Ty Cobb___________167
10.Jimmie Foxx________163
_Mark McGwire_____163
12.Pete Browning______162
_Frank Thomas_____162
(JOSH GIBSON 10% OFF MLE162)
14.Dave Orr___________161
15.Stan Musial________159
16.Hank Greenberg_____158
_Johnny Mize______158
_Tris Speaker_____158
19.Dick Allen_________156
_Willie Mays______156
_Manny Ramirez____156

Now you can see why he might just be the most valuable player of all time.

by RM on Mar 7, 2011 8:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Thanks for this...

But:

Now you can see why he might just be the most valuable player of all time.

Nobody ever denied that. I’m going to let everyone in on something—I’m not all that good at math. I can do whatever with the basics but the vast majority of the time I have no clue what the hell you guys are talking about. :)

I think it’s awesome that it looks like we have win shares. But I don’t know how to convert win shares into WAR any more than I know how to covert My Little Ponies into GI Joes. Who can help me out here? I would love to see which Negro League players clear the same wWAR threshold so we can do this the right way.

On Twitter: @baseballtwit

by adarowski on Mar 7, 2011 9:04 PM EST up 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