View Poll Results: PLEASE READ RULES, LIMIT TO 15 VOTES, AND POST BALLOT IN THREAD

Voters
33. You may not vote on this poll
  • Babe Adams, SP (1906-1907, 1909-1916, 1918-1926) - 5th Year

    1 3.03%
  • Pete Alexander, SP (1911-1930) - 1st Year

    31 93.94%
  • Dave Bancroft, SS (1915-1930) - 1st Year

    9 27.27%
  • Chief Bender, SP (1903-1917, 1925) - 14th Year

    12 36.36%
  • George J. Burns, LF (1911-1925) - 6th Year

    3 9.09%
  • Hal Carlson, SP (1917-1930) - 1st Year

    0 0%
  • Eddie Collins, 2B (1906-1930) - 1st Year

    32 96.97%
  • Wilbur Cooper, SP (1912-1926) - 5th Year

    11 33.33%
  • Gavvy Cravath, RF (1908-1909, 1912-1920) - 11th Year

    6 18.18%
  • Bill Doak, SP (1912-1924, 1927-1929) - 2nd Year

    0 0%
  • Howard Ehmke, CF (1915-1917, 1919-1930) - 1st Year

    0 0%
  • Johnny Evers, 2B (1902-1917, 1922, 1929) - 10th Year

    7 21.21%
  • Ira Flagstead, CF (1917, 1919-1930) - 1st Year

    0 0%
  • Jack Fournier, 1B (1912-1918, 1920-1927) - 4th Year

    1 3.03%
  • Larry Gardner, 3B (1908-1924) - 7th Year

    3 9.09%
  • Hank Gowdy, C (1910-1917, 1919-1925, 1929-1930) - 2nd Year

    0 0%
  • Heinie Groh, 3B (1912-1927) - 4th Year

    22 66.67%
  • Bubbles Hargrave, C (1913-1915, 1921-1928, 1930) - 1st Year

    0 0%
  • Harry Hooper, RF (1909-1925) - 6th Year

    7 21.21%
  • Ed Konetchy, 1B (1907-1921) - 10th Year

    3 9.09%
  • Tommy Leach, 3B/CF (1898-1915, 1918) - 14th Year

    19 57.58%
  • Rube Marquard, SP (1908-1925) - 6th Year

    4 12.12%
  • Carl Mays, SP (1915-1929) - 2nd Year

    15 45.45%
  • Bob Meusel, LF/RF (1920-1930) - 1st Year

    3 9.09%
  • Del Pratt, 2B (1912-1924) - 7th Year

    4 12.12%
  • Ed Reulbach, SP (1905-1917) - 14th Year

    2 6.06%
  • Ray Schalk, C (1912-1929) - 2nd Year

    6 18.18%
  • Bob Shawkey, SP (1913-1926) - 4th Year

    1 3.03%
  • Urban Shocker, SP (1916-1928) - 3rd Year

    8 24.24%
  • George Sisler, 1B (1915-1922, 1924-1930) - 1st Year

    30 90.91%
  • Joe Tinker, SS (1902-1916) - 15th Year

    7 21.21%
  • Hippo Vaughn, SP (1908, 1910-1921) - 10th Year

    5 15.15%
  • Bobby Veach, LF (1912-1925) - 6th Year

    9 27.27%
  • Curt Walker, RF (1919-1930) - 1st Year

    0 0%
  • Cy Williams, CF (1912-1930) - 1st Year

    5 15.15%
  • Ken Williams, LF (1915-1929) - 2nd Year

    1 3.03%
  • Joe Wood, SP (1908-1915, 1917, 1919-1920) - 9th Year

    5 15.15%
  • Ross Youngs, RF (1917-1926) - 5th Year

    4 12.12%
  • None of the Above (Blank Ballot)

    0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 79

Thread: BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1935

  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by jalbright View Post
    Could you point me to which thread that is? I'd be very interested in looking through it. Thanks.

    http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/...from_last_year

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    14,554
    Blog Entries
    34
    Thanks, and that thread is worth looking at, but what I want to see most is the nuts and bolts of calculating these win shares from TPI for the National Association. If you could point me to that, I'd be most appreciative. Thanks.
    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.

  3. #53

    re: 1871-75 win shares for 20 players, by Chris Cobb

    Here is Chris Cobb's introduction to that table. He is [ed.] and I am {Ed.}.
    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
    What survives from the thread "Start and McVey" provides little more insight on the method.
    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.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    D-town, MI
    Posts
    5,947
    Blog Entries
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Wendt View Post
    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.
    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.
    Eradicate, wipe out and abolish redundancy.

    Free El Duque!(and Mark Mulder) -- discover how the HOF rules are cheating this renowned member of Torre's Yankees dynasty and ask the HOF to include him on the ballot for the next BBWAA election.

  5. #55
    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.

  6. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleX View Post
    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.

  7. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Freakshow View Post
    Win Shares gives McVey a fair amount of credit for his pitching stints, 76-79.
    He was very good on the mound in '76, but got pounded in the other seasons.
    Last edited by SavoyBG; 01-17-2009 at 03:23 PM.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    929
    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

  9. #59
    Alexander
    Collins
    Sisler

  10. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Phish View Post
    Alexander
    Collins
    Sisler
    You just knocked Groh back down under the number.

    I can understand Sisler getting in, but not this overwhelmingly. He's not an all time great player like Collins and Alexander.

  11. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by SavoyBG View Post
    You just knocked Groh back down under the number.

    I can understand Sisler getting in, but not this overwhelmingly. He's not an all time great player like Collins and Alexander.
    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.

  12. #62
    I think your right that its that people are voting for guys like Sisler and forgetting about Groh, though!

  13. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by bambambaseball View Post
    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.

    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.

  14. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by SavoyBG View Post
    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.

  15. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by bambambaseball View Post
    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

  16. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by bambambaseball View Post
    Sisler was signifigantly better then Bill Terry.
    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?

  17. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by SavoyBG View Post
    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
    I know that Terry career doesnt even come close to Sisler- 1936 and that this 1936 season he was only a part time player!

    I like the Groh comparison to point out how it doesnt make sense to vote for Sisler but not Groh because I agree with you there.

  18. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by SavoyBG View Post
    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?
    Those are raw win shares and OPS+ is for amateurs. I dont even look at that. Adjusted bating runs? Please show me how they compare to their contemporarys in that catagory.

  19. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by bambambaseball View Post
    Adjusted bating runs? Please show me how they compare to their contemporarys in that catagory.

    ADJUSTED BATTING RUNS
    Sisler - 250
    Terry - 315 (through 1934)

    I ask you again, what evidence do you have that makes Sisler "significantly better" than Terry?

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    6,399
    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.

  21. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by mwiggins View Post
    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.
    Are you disputing these numbers?

    WIN SHARES BEST THREE SEASONS
    Sisler - 33-29-29 = 91
    Terry - 32-32-29 = 93

    Once you adjust for era and home park, Terry's best two seasons combined were a bit more valuable than Sisler's best two seasons combined.

  22. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by SavoyBG View Post
    Are you disputing these numbers?

    WIN SHARES BEST THREE SEASONS
    Sisler - 33-29-29 = 91
    Terry - 32-32-29 = 93

    Once you adjust for era and home park, Terry's best two seasons combined were a bit more valuable than Sisler's best two seasons combined.
    How does any of this show that Sisler is below the standards of this project? Terry is a definite yes on my balott in 1941 so your preaching to the choir here.

  23. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by SavoyBG View Post
    ADJUSTED BATTING RUNS
    Sisler - 250
    Terry - 315 (through 1934)

    I ask you again, what evidence do you have that makes Sisler "significantly better" than Terry?
    mwiggins already did!

  24. #74
    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

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    14,554
    Blog Entries
    34
    Many thanks for digging this up, Dan!

    Quote Originally Posted by Freakshow View Post
    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.
    Last edited by jalbright; 01-18-2009 at 08:49 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.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •