How accurate are Win Shares?

[Bill Burgess]

I'd like to have a conversation with respect to the accuracy of the Win Shares system.

[Bill Burgess]

Here is a chart I did, and I listed WS as one column. WS. Notice how it differs from OPS+ and Relative slugging in some cases to the extreme.

Win Shares says that Honus Wagner had the greatest season in history. 59 WS. I beg to differ. Ruth/Bonds registered some seasons over 240 OPS+, while Wagner's 1908 OPS+ was a great 205.

Any thoughts?


According to Relative Slugging Average. Those in red are pre-1920.

----------------Rel.SLG-Rel.OBP--Rel.BA.-OPS+-INK--PCA-----WS--TPR
Ruth, 1920-------2.08----1.47-----1.27---256---16--28.83---51--10.0
Ruth,1921--------2.07----1.43-----1.29---239---16--24.79---53---9.8
Bonds, 2001------2.04 ---1.57-----1.27---262---09--20.82---54--12.2
Ruth, 1923-------1.96----1.55-----1.39---239---16--22.2----55--11.2
Bonds, 2002------1.96----1.77-----1.45---275---09--20.6----49--11.2
Gehrig,1927------1.91----1.34-----1.30---221---07--17.17---44---9.1
Williams, 1941---1.88----1.61-----1.52---235---16--22.1----42---8.8
Ruth, 1924-------1.86----1.43-----1.30---220---16--20.8----45---8.5
Foxx,1932--------1.85----1.35-----1.31---205---14--18.54---40---7.2
Bonds, 2004------1.83----1.76-----1.32---260---09--21.8----53--12.5
Musial,1948------1.83----1.35-----1.44---200---20--20.30---46---7.3
Mantle,1956------1.78----1.36-----1.35---210---18--22.96---49---8.8
Cobb, 1917-------1.78----1.39-----1.54---209---16--19.7----46---8.4
Hornsby,1922-----1.78----1.31-----1.37---207---23--20.37---42---9.2
Yaz,1967---------1.77----1.38-----1.38---195---21--16.81---42---6.5
Wagner,1908------1.70----1.35-----1.43---205---19--18.42---59--10.2
Cobb,1911--------1.73----1.38-----1.53---196---22--20.74---47---6.4

[SABR Matt]

Personally...and I know this may SHOCK you guys...but I think PCA is significantly more accurate. Obviously I don't have any way of proving this beyond a shadow of a doubt aside from my own intuition when looking at my conclusions vs. James' conclusions.

That said, I don't think WS are inaccurate...in general I think they have the right idea. Not sure how to expand on that thought.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Personally...and I know this may SHOCK you guys...but I think PCA is significantly more accurate. Obviously I don't have any way of proving this beyond a shadow of a doubt aside from my own intuition when looking at my conclusions vs. James' conclusions.

That said, I don't think WS are inaccurate...in general I think they have the right idea. Not sure how to expand on that thought.

No really, are you serious?

[Tango Tiger]

Win Shares includes fielding and positioning.

At the very least, compare Wagner's OPS to other SS of his era.

[Bill Burgess]

OK. YOu guys are not picking up on the many discrepancies. So, I will lead the way in showing some.

----------------Rel.SLG-Rel.OBP--Rel.BA.-OPS+-INK--PCA-----WS--TPR
Wagner,1908------1.70----1.35-----1.43---205---19--18.42---59--10.2
Cobb,1911--------1.73----1.38-----1.53---196---22--20.74---47---6.4

Here, Honus is shown to have a 59-47 WS lead. Would seem to be a crushing, over-whelming, level of stats. But wait. When we look at them, where's the crushing difference?

Is somebody telling me that Wagner's being a better fielder worth 12 whole WS points? How is better fielding possible to account for such an avalanche of points?

Can Wagner really save his team that many runs? Wagner's slight .03 point slg. edge is nullified by Ty's slight .05 point BA lead, plus better running.

Cobb stole 83 bases, to set a short-lived record, while Honus stole 53 bases. Honus walked 10 more times than Ty. And what about LQ?

So, where does the 12 points really come from?

[leewileyfan]

Win Shares includes fielding and positioning.

At the very least, compare Wagner's OPS to other SS of his era.

I read this post from TT and did a review, with slight modifications, since Win Shares purportedly weigh in defense with offense.

I'm a big Honus Wagner fan; but IMO too many lionize him as a defensive SS beyond what his defensive performance actually suggests.

Here's his defense career, seasons from rookie year through considerable playing time in seasons through 1917. Defense runs @ SS are runs saved [+] or lost [-] relative to N.L. average for each season listed.

For each season, I've listed Wagner's defense runs and the teams/players who surpassed him with the glove [within the N.L. only]@ SS by my metric.

Season............Notes/Comments.....Wagner D~R......Better Ratings by:

1901...............61 games, fewer............................................. ........
than other pos.
1902..............fewer games @ SS................................................ ....
[44] than 2B
1903.............................................. .+1.31..........Aubrey, Bonner

1904.............................................. .-2.81...........Tinker, Dahlen

1905.............................................. .+7.10...........Corcoran

1906.............................................. .+3.87...........Bridwell

1907.............................................. .+2.64...........Bridwell, Tinker, Doolan

1908.............................................. .+4.95...........none

1909.............................................. .+2.87...........Coffey/Dahlen; Tinker;
.................................................. ......................Hulswitt/Storke

1910.............................................. .+1.35...........Sweeney, Doolan

1911.............................................. .+1.58...........Herzog, Bridwell, Tinker
.................................................. ......................Doolan, Fletcher

1912.............................................. .+4.09...........Tinker, Hauser

1913.............................................. .-4.64............Tinker, O'Rourke &
.................................................. .......................Bridwell; Esmond &
.................................................. .......................Grant; Doolan

1914.............................................. +8.15............Maranville, Herzog

1915..............................................-1.64............Maranville, Herzog,
.................................................. ......................Fletcher

1916..............................................-6.30............Maranville, Fletcher,
.................................................. .....................Bancroft

1917..............................................-5.41............Olson, Fletcher,
.................................................. ......................Bancroft ......................and
.................................................. ......................rookie Rogers Hornsby

It strikes me than in allocating win shares, offensive shares built up by solid hitters should not by used as leverage to penalized defensive whizzes on competing clubs who do not hit as well. If you are +10 offensively and -7 defensively. your rating may not be all that superior overall to a player [at a key position especially], who is -5 offensively but +18 defensively.