Babe Adams, SP (1906-1907, 1909-1916, 1918-1926) - 5th Year
Pete Alexander, SP (1911-1930) - 1st Year
Dave Bancroft, SS (1915-1930) - 1st Year
Chief Bender, SP (1903-1917, 1925) - 14th Year
George J. Burns, LF (1911-1925) - 6th Year
Hal Carlson, SP (1917-1930) - 1st Year
Eddie Collins, 2B (1906-1930) - 1st Year
Wilbur Cooper, SP (1912-1926) - 5th Year
Gavvy Cravath, RF (1908-1909, 1912-1920) - 11th Year
Bill Doak, SP (1912-1924, 1927-1929) - 2nd Year
Howard Ehmke, CF (1915-1917, 1919-1930) - 1st Year
Johnny Evers, 2B (1902-1917, 1922, 1929) - 10th Year
Ira Flagstead, CF (1917, 1919-1930) - 1st Year
Jack Fournier, 1B (1912-1918, 1920-1927) - 4th Year
Larry Gardner, 3B (1908-1924) - 7th Year
Hank Gowdy, C (1910-1917, 1919-1925, 1929-1930) - 2nd Year
Heinie Groh, 3B (1912-1927) - 4th Year
Bubbles Hargrave, C (1913-1915, 1921-1928, 1930) - 1st Year
Harry Hooper, RF (1909-1925) - 6th Year
Ed Konetchy, 1B (1907-1921) - 10th Year
Tommy Leach, 3B/CF (1898-1915, 1918) - 14th Year
Rube Marquard, SP (1908-1925) - 6th Year
Carl Mays, SP (1915-1929) - 2nd Year
Bob Meusel, LF/RF (1920-1930) - 1st Year
Del Pratt, 2B (1912-1924) - 7th Year
Ed Reulbach, SP (1905-1917) - 14th Year
Ray Schalk, C (1912-1929) - 2nd Year
Bob Shawkey, SP (1913-1926) - 4th Year
Urban Shocker, SP (1916-1928) - 3rd Year
George Sisler, 1B (1915-1922, 1924-1930) - 1st Year
Joe Tinker, SS (1902-1916) - 15th Year
Hippo Vaughn, SP (1908, 1910-1921) - 10th Year
Bobby Veach, LF (1912-1925) - 6th Year
Curt Walker, RF (1919-1930) - 1st Year
Cy Williams, CF (1912-1930) - 1st Year
Ken Williams, LF (1915-1929) - 2nd Year
Joe Wood, SP (1908-1915, 1917, 1919-1920) - 9th Year
Ross Youngs, RF (1917-1926) - 5th Year
None of the Above (Blank Ballot)
Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.
Here is Chris Cobb's introduction to that table. He is [ed.] and I am {Ed.}.
What survives from the thread "Start and McVey" provides little more insight on the method.15. Chris Cobb Posted: September 02, 2005 at 09:58 PM (#1594606)
Originally Posted August 30, 2003
Win Share Translations for Selected National Association Players
This posting contains all of the translated win shares that I have calculated, based on the ratios between batting value and fielding value in the WS and WARP systems [according to the WARP1 numbers then in use for these players. Current WARP1 evaluations might be quite different. It might be interesting to see how the WARP evals have changed, if at all—ed. note 10/1/05 {presumably 2005-09-01 --Ed.}]. It includes all of the HoMers who played in the NA, all of the players currently appearing on ballots, and some other notable players of the National Association. Translations do not include any estimates for pitching WS. Al Spalding's listing including batting win shares only.
I posted my methodology for the translations on the McVey - Start thread; it should be findable there {much of it is lost in cyberspace -Ed.}, but I'm happy to address any questions about the translation methods.
Players are arranged alphabetically, but, in order of adjusted WS earned, 1871-75, they are Barnes, G. Wright, Pike, McVey, Meyerle, Anson, Force, Sutton, White, Eggler, O'Rourke, York, Spalding (batting only), Start, Ferguson, Pearce, Hines, H. Wright, Peters, Jones.
FORMAT
Player, 1871-1875
Translated WS each season, 1871-1875 -- total
Season adj. WS each season, 1871, 1875 -- total
Other ML seasons played -- total adj. WS for those seasons
Career adj. WS
To see what there is, begin at the preface to win shares estimates for McVey. by Chris Cobb, 2003-07-25. Many contributions to the Hall of Merit, and the latter portions of all longer contributions, were lost during a website reorganization (early 2004?).
The strategy for raw win shares is clear: estimate early Win Shares from early WARP by Clay Davenport, using data on Win Shares and WARP where both are available from James and Davenport, that is beginning 1876.
An Internet Archive version of "Start and McVey" exists! Here's the sought after posting:
Posted 6:21 p.m., July 23, 2003 (#27) - Chris Cobb
As promised here are career Win Shares for Cal McVey, as derived from WARP1
Year -- Total -- Batting / Fielding -- adj. To 162 games (from)
1871 -- 9 -- 7.8/1.2 -- 48 (30 games)
1872 -- 7.6 -- 4.7/2.9 -- 24 (50 games)
1873 -- 9.9 -- 8.5/1.4 -- 27 (60 games)
1874 -- 16.6 -- 14.7/1.9 -- 38 (70 games)
1875 -- 25.2 -- 20.5/4.7 -- 51 (80 games)
1876 -- 11.6 -- 9.7/1.9 -- 31 (60 games)
1877 -- 11.2 -- 10.7/.5 -- 30 (60 games)
1878 -- 8.8 -- 8.6/.2 -- 22 (60 games)
1879 -- 12.3 -- 9.9/2.4 -- 24 (84 games)
Total -- 121.2 -- 95.1/17.1 -- 295
For 1876-1879, WS itself records 54 WS for McVey (16, 14, 11, 13), which adjust to 136. However, 22 of those are pitching WS, which WARP does not accept. Less the pitching WS, McVey's raw WS are 45, compared to 43.9 derived from WARP. I did this calculation to verify the accuracy of the method, employed on a season-by-season basis. Expanded, the differences come to 114 WS, 107 WARP. I suspect the difference arises from the very low fielding runs WARP gives McVey, which make the conversion into a rough estimate.
Ways of looking at the total
295 -- WARP-derived adj. career WS -- this number should be within 5% of the total that would be arrived at by calculating all McVey's WS directly from the data.
302 -- WARP-derived adj. Career WS 71-75 + adj. WS 76-79
324 -- Pitching added to 302
314 -- No pitching added, but fielding WS in the 302 figure adjusted upward by 30% (my standard pre-1893 adjustment)
I am amused that the estimate I find most accurate -- 314 -- almost exactly matches the rougher estimate that I set out to refine -- 315.
Having given the numbers, I'll explain the method, for those who want to know.
Battting Win Shares
Rather than starting from the WARP1 total, I started from BRAR. WS and WARP are in much closer agreement about batting value than about fielding value.
WARP1 seasonal totals seem to be calculated by summing all batting, fielding, and pitching runs above replacement and multiplying that total by about .103. So BRAR/10 gives a fair approximation of BWARP. If WS and WARP are right, then this should be true Batting WS = (BWARP X 3) + Batting Replacement Level. As far as I can tell, it is. If you divide BRAR by 10 and multiply by 3 for any player season or career, you'll get a number just a bit below batting win shares. That leaves the problem of replacement level. Since replacement level isn't entirely constant, and BRAR and batting WS are not perfectly consistent, this number isn't entirely fixable, but I've found by some trial and error that 3.5 WS / 162 games gives results that are accurate within 5% in all but one case I have tried (that's Sam Thompson -- grist for the mill!). For McVey, I found that replacement level for his 76-79 seasons, as calculable by subtracting his BWAR from his BWS was 3.52, so I used this number in calculations of batting WS for his 71-75 seasons. I am very confident, therefore, that the batting win shares are accurate within 5%. (A while ago I calculated batting WS by hand for the 1875 Red Stockings, so I had a hard number to check that season against. The WS calculated off of BWARP came to 21.5; the WS calculated by hand came to 20.5 -- 5% discrepancy. Since I had the hand-calculated WS number for 1875, I used it).
Fielding Win Shares
Since win shares and WARP do not agree about fielding value, there is no way to predict consistently the ratio of FRAR and fielding win shares. Win shares gives much lower credit for fielding, so I figured that a straight ratio of conversion for McVey's fielding win shares would give a conservative estimate of what actually calculating his fielding WS would reveal. McVey's FWAR for 76-79 are 3.5 . His fielding WS for this period are 4.86. The ratio between them is 1.39. For McVey's 71-75 seasons, I divided his FRAR by 10 and multiplied that number by 1.39. This gives a much lower estimate of McVey's fielding value than WARP does, but I figured that it would be a fairly accurate representation of the numbers that the WS system would actually produce. In rating McVey myself, I (as I have indicated above) multiply his fielding WS by 1.3.
Pitching Win Shares
Win Shares gives McVey a fair amount of credit for his pitching stints, 76-79. WARP evaluates his pitching during that period as well below replacement level. These assessments are not reconcilable. Fortunately, McVey pitched hardly at all prior to 1876, so there's no need to worry about converting his pitching record in that period into WS. If you believe what WS has to say about pitching, you can give McVey additional WS. If you don't, you can leave those out. If you believe WARP, you can dock McVey's career WS by 4 or so to account for his hurting his team by taking the mound.
Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam, circumspice.
Comprehensive Reform for the Veterans Committee -- Fixing the Hall continued.
At some point I think we had a minor conversation about Del Pratt's defense. I was just skimming through the Bill James Historical Abstract and noticed that in discussing Pratt, James believes Pratt deserved the 1919 Gold Glove, and would have been second in five other seasons, four of which he was behind the great Eddie Collins.
This probably won't tip the scales for anyone, but it's some food for thought.
Win shares has Pratt as a B fielder. Collins was A-, but in way more innings at 2B.
Pratt was a very good player. Just not a hall of fame level player. He's at a similar level to Jimmy Williams and Mller Huggins. Guys who were pretty solidly above average 2Bmen for around ten seasons.
Babe Adams
Pete alexander
chief bender
eddie collins
johnny evers
larry gardner
heinie groh
harry hooper
tommy leach
rube marquard
carl mays
bob meusel
ed reulbach
bob shawkey
george sisler
Alexander
Collins
Sisler
First, in is in. The whole 1st balott or 15th balott push is a stupid line of reasoning. So is this talk about 100% vs 75%. In is in! Also, through 75 years of professional baseball, only Roger Conner, Dan Brouthers and Cap Anson compare to him at his position. That makes him an all time great in 1936 eyes! Gehrig and his company are a different type of player from a different way of playing that cant be compared to when those 4 played.
I think your right that its that people are voting for guys like Sisler and forgetting about Groh, though!
Maybe you missed the discussion, but I showed a few other 1Bman from this century who are around the same level of Sisler, including current Giants star Bill Terry, who will likely end up as a much better overall hitter than George, given George's shocking decline over the final 7 years of his career ('24 to '30).
Even george's great years are a bit overrated. He hit a ton of singles, did not walk much and only had decent power. He was not all that great of a fielder either. Excellent speed.
I saw it. You want to punish Sisler because he didnt retire when he got injured and reward guys with much lesser careers for not playing after their injuries did them in and you ignore the fact that when Sisler played, he did because he needed money and baseball players didnt make the big bucks. Thats a weak argument. Sisler was signifigantly better then Bill Terry.
How do you know for sure, Terry's career is not even over yet.
Sisler wasn't even better than Groh:
WIN SHARES TOP THREE SEASONS
Groh - 37-30-28
Sisler - 33-29-29
WIN SHARES TOP 5 CONSECUTIVE SEASONS
Groh - 147
Sisler - 135
WIN SHARES TOP 7 CONSECUTIVE SEASONS
Groh - 191
Sisler - 189
WIN SHARES per 162:
Sisler - 23.02
Groh - 26.19
Doesn't seem so. He beats Sisler in every peak measurement, and at this point has a much better career OPS+ than George.
WIN SHARES BEST THREE SEASONS
Sisler - 33-29-29 = 91
Terry - 32-32-29 = 93
WIN SHARES BEST 5 CONSECUTIVE SEASONS
Terry - 142
Sisler - 135
And if you stretch it out to seven consecutive seasons:
Terry - 191
Sisler - 189
Terry already has more adjusted batting runs, was a much better fielder, and could still add to his totals.
What do you possibly see that makes Sisler "significantly better" than Terry?
I notice he left career win shares out of the equation...
Sisler - 292
Terry - 278
Groh - 271
Even playing half his career with impaired vision, he still racked up more career value than both Terry and Groh. And that's with missing a full season in his prime. And Win Shares doesn't really take into account his great baserunning, where he has a huge edge on Terry.
And in their best years, Terry was nowhere near Sisler. Terry has nothing on his resume that can touch Sisler's 1920 and 1922 seasons. Sisler was clearly the better player. And he put together a better career, despite his illness.
Davenport likes Sisler more than does James.
That is, Sisler fares better by WARP1 than by Win Shares.
On the other hand Terry has now extended his prime seasons to nine, two more than Sisler.
'->' means prorate a short schedule to 154 games (here, 1918 and 1919)
prime seasons
Sisler, 1916-22, seven seasons, sum 66.7 -> 69.8
(ordered by WARP1 before prorating)
12.0
9.9
9.6
9.3
9.1 -> 10.0
9.0 -> 11.2
7.8
Terry, 1927-35, nine seasons, sum 77.1
(ordered by WARP1)
10.5
10.0
9.9
8.6
8.5
8.2
7.9
7.5
6.0
Here are the same ratings more compactly.
120 112 100 99 96 93 78 -- -- : Sisler 1916-22 (after prorating 1918-19 to 154g)
105 100 99 86 85 82 79 75 60 : Terry 1927-35
best three seasons, sum
33.4 Sisler
30.4 Terry
best 5-year run, sum
(chronological order)
93 99 112 100 120 -> 52.4 : Sisler 1916-20
75 79 100 99 105 -> 45.8 : Terry 1928-32
--
Heinie Groh
best three seasons, sum
38.5
best 5-year run, sum
122 137 127 121 108 -> 61.5 : Groh 1916-20 (after prorating; including his best three seasons)
prime seasons ??
137 127 122 121 108 104 80 73 71 64 63 50
Groh missed more than one-third of the 1920 season and produced 6.3 WARP1. His first season 7.1 in Cincinnati was also short, where his best season in New York was full. Probably his prime" seasons should be considered his nine seasons in Cincinnati recognizing that the first was a little short and the last a lot short.
(chronological order)
71 80 104 122 137 127 121 108 63 -> 92.3 : Groh 1913-21 (after prorating)
--
RECAP - WARP1 after prorating 1918-19
top3 5yr ; prime sum, length
38.5 61.5; 92.3, 9 Groh
33.4 52.4; 69.8, 7 Sisler
30.4 45.8; 77.1, 9 Terry
Last edited by jalbright; 01-18-2009 at 09:49 AM.
Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.
Bookmarks