Griffey Jr. vs. Wynn

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Ok Chris,

Here's your chance to show us why Jimmy Wynn was a better player than Ken Griffey Jr. I look forward to reading your argument.

[yanks0714]

Nice poll. One of the most underrated players ever, Jimmy Wynn, vs. one of the most overrated players in Ken Griffey, Jr.

Wynn easily. Played in a pitching dominated era; played in the Astrodome; and was pretty much THE only Astro who pitchers feared.

Junior played in a a bandbox in Seattle; in an era highly conducive to hitting; and played with some other pretty darn good players.

Junior is flash. Wynn was substance. Junior played some of the deepest CF allowing him to go back and make those ESPN highlight over-the-fence catches. Taking that into consideration I'd take The Toy Cannon on defesne as well.

[mac195]

Yeah, Wynn is underrated, but he's no Ken Griffey Jr. You can't park effect away the difference between those two players.

[DoubleX]

Griffey might be overrated, but so is Wynn's underratedness (if that makes sense).

Wynn was a good player, who from the general public deserves more credit than he gets, but Griffey has a legitimate claim to being the best player of an entire decade (I'd personally take at least Bonds before Griffey for the 90s).

[BoSox Rule]

Once you look at these numbers you can never understand how Ken Griffey, Jr. is considered overrated: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/griffke02.shtml

The only time in his career when he was ever overrated was the fact that he, not Bonds, was named the 1990's Player of the Decade. And he was 2nd best.

[DoubleX]

The only time in his career when he was ever overrated was the fact that he, not Bonds, was named the 1990's Player of the Decade. And he was 2nd best.

Amen to that. I remember thinking at the time how ridiculous that was (in addition to Griffey making the All Century team and Bonds not).

Anywho, I think his injury woes of the last few years have caused people to forget just how good Griffey was during the entire 90s. Was he overhyped, yes? But there was a reason he was hyped in the first place - he was good, very, very good.

I rate Griffey as the 6th best CFer of all-time, and I would not be that adverse to arguments that want to put Griffey ahead of DiMaggio for 5th.

Wynn, I have much lower, somewhere closer to the 12-15 range.

[538280]

HWR, I've gone over this a number of times, I've made the argument even more times and at a number of different forums. This is basically a composite list of all the arguments I've made for Wynn:

I've done this many times on this board, advocated Jimmy Wynn (with only moderate success). He is unquestionably a HOFer in my book, and it really is quite simple why people don't recognize his greatness. There are two fundemental reasons:

1.Secondary average is always underrated, batting average is always overrated. When you consider Wynn had a BA of .250, and a SA of .404, you realize how bad a measure of his talent his BA really is.

2.He played mostly in the Astrodome in the 1960s, which is basically deadball type surroundings.

For those reasons, I think era and park adjusted sabermetric stats are all that we should use to evaluate Wynn, since traditional stats aren't adjusted for park/era, and they usually tend to underrate great secondary hitters (which definitely contributes to secondary hitters being underrated). So, let's compare Wynn to Ken Griffey Jr., a player most consider to be a surefire HOFer:

First, let's just compare Wynn and Griffey's best years. Wynn's best year was certainly 1969, and Griffey's best year was 1997. In 1969, Wynn created 7.80 runs per 27 outs. The league average of RC/27 in the 1969 NL was 4.32. Thus, Wynn had a 181 Relative RC/27.

Griffey in 1997 had 8.98 RC/27. The league average RC/27 was 5.28. Thus, Griffey had a 170 Relative RC/27.

Now, neither of those are adjusted for park effects, so let's fix that too. The 1997 Kingdome had a park factor of .99. The 1969 Astrodome had a park factor of 98. It doesn't make much of difference (even though it should, this proves park factors don't mean all that much), but this adjusts the Rel. RC/27 to 185, and Griffey's to 172.

So, as you can see, Wynn is clearly superior. Also, don't forget that Wynn was playing in the hardest era in history to dominate. As to total value, I suppose Griffey was a bit of a better fielder than Wynn, though not nearly enough better to make up for 13 points of Rel. RC/27.

Now, you may be looking at this from a superficial level and claiming that the fact Griffey hit 56 HRs must make him better. Well, let's look at just home run power for Griffey/Wynn. In 1997 Griffey hit one home run for every 10.9 at bats. In 1969 Wynn hit one HR for every 15 at bats. That is obviosly unfair, we have to adjust for era. The 1969 NL HR/AB was 44.7, thus meaning Wynn had a 298 Rel. HR/AB. The 1997 AL's HR/AB was 31.6, thus Griffey had a 290 Rel. HR/AB. That's right, Wynn was a better HR hitter in the context of his time, even when we don't adjust for park effects.

So, it has basically been determined that Wynn was a better player in 1969 than Griffey was in 1997, but that's just one year. Obviously, we can't judge a player's whole career on one year. So, let's look at the career Win Shares analysis:

Career WS
Wynn-305
Griffey-339

Top 3
Wynn-36, 32, 32
Griffey-36, 31, 30

Sum of top 5 consecutive
Wynn-141
Griffey-148

Per 162 Games
Wynn-25.73
Griffey-27.50

Now, the only one Griffey will probably come out with a good lead in is career WS, but that really doesn't matter much, because I don't value hang around value at all. Wynn may actually end up ahead in WS/162 games, since Griffey still has his decline years ahead of him. So, we look at the rating converted system:

Career
Griffey-29.45
Wynn-27.75

Top 3
Griffey-32.33
Wynn-33.33

Sum of top 5 consecuive
Griffey-29.6
Wynn-28.2

Per 162
Griffey-27.50
Wynn-25.73

So, the total comes out to 115.01 for Wynn, and 118.88 for Griffey. Griffey is just slightly ahead, but I think the fact that Wynn played in a stronger league, and he played in the Astrodome (WS are park adjusted, but as I said earlier, park effects have definitely severely underrated the Astrodome's effect on hitters).

So, now let's compare their strengths and weaknesses, as can be summarized by their career. The only real big advantage Griffey has on Wynn is contact hitting (97 Rel. BA for Wynn, 109 for Griffey). However, the difference is made up by Wynn's outstanding plate discipline (120 Rel.IsoPD for Griffey, very low for a player of his type, versus 176 Rel.IsoPD for Wynn). Plus, as we outlined earlier, Wynn really has just as much HR power as Griffey, in context, and he also stole more bases.

One last thing-When you count walks and stolen bases, Wynn in his career accounted for 4350 bases. He also made 5312 outs. So, he had 0.819 bases for every out. Griffey accounted for 5293 bases, and made 5513 outs. He had 0.960 bases per out. So, Wynn is behind, but that is a figure unadjusted for era or park, and includes Wynn's decline years, and not Griffey's. I don't know how that would come out adjusted, but it's pretty safe to say Wynn would have a substantial lead.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm pushing the rules a bit here, but I'm going to use Ken Griffey Jr. (a player everyone assumes will be in the HOF probably in the first ballot), and Jimmy Wynn:

Career Win Shares
Griffey-339
Wynn-305

Top 3 Win Share Seasons
Griffey-36, 31, 30
Wynn-36, 32, 32

Sum of Top 5 Consecutive Seasons
Griffey-148
Wynn-141

Win Shares Per 162 Games
Griffey-27.50
Wynn-25.73

Based on those raw Win Shares, Griffey comes out slightly ahead. But, when you consider that Griffey is generally regarded to be a first ballot guy, Wynn's numbers that are basically even show you he is almost as deserving of a first ballot selection.

Anyway, based on those numbers with adjustments I'd put Wynn ahead of Griffey. When you consider that Wynn was playing in a stronger league, in the Astrodome (Win Shares are park adjusted, but aren't well suited for extreme cases like the Astrodome). Also, Griffey will probably pull about even with Wynn in WS/162 games, assuming he has a normal decline period. If Griffey can put together two more years like 2005, then he'll probably have pulled ahead of Wynn, but as of now, and as the prospects look for the future, Wynn will always remain ahead of Griffey in my book.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as Wynn over Griffey, I think Wynn was just as good in the context of his conditions. Wynn top 3 Win Share seasons are 36, 32, and 32. Griffey's are 36, 31, and 30. Wynn has a three year peak, and that means alot for me. Griffey is currently ahead in WS/162 games, but Wynn will be ahead by the end of Griffey's career and once he goes through a decline phase. Also, I don't feel that the park factor adjustment is big enough in this case. I think the Astrodome had a huge effect on his performance, not just the small effect of park factors that James has in Win Shares. That futhers Wynn's lead. Also, Wynn played in a better league (I know, I used to think the quality of play improved over time, but I now realize that is not true. The game improved until about 1980, and then went downhill a bit. This can be studied by looking at how much some players have been over the league average over the past 25 years. The game is obvioulsly easier to dominate today than it was in the 1960s and 1970s.). Also, the subjective credit. Wynn gets subjective credit from me because he is so my type of player. I'd love to get a team of Jimmy Wynn type players, whereas Griffey to me isn't really that appealing. Griffey's walk rates are alarmingly low for his type of player. A player like Griffey is pitched around often, and thus should walk quite a bit. Yet, Griffey really didn't walk all that much in his career. That is a huge strike against him to me. I'd take Wynn on my team over Griffey in a heartbeat, and I'd also say Wynn had more value.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jimmy Wynn is probably one of the most underrated players in baseball history. He could have played in the most run scarce environment of anyone since the deadball era. The Astrodome in the 1960s....I mean, it's amazing anyone could be an offensive force there, but Wynn was. Look at his 1969 season, 136 Rel. OBP, 136 Rel. SLG, plus great defense in CF and 23 SBs. He was a truly a great player.

I know there are many BA freaks out there who will admantly disagree with me, but Wynn, despite his lack of contact, was about as good a secondary hitter as you'll ever find, and he also was a great fielder and baserunner. In more favorable conditions, I think he could have been better than Ken Griffey Jr.

Griffey was great, no doubt, but he was all flash. He made lots of diving catches and looked really athletic out there but really didn't have all that great range or arm. He wasn't as good a fielder as Wynn.

His hitting wasn't as good either. Once again, Griffey's hitting was all flash. His home run and RBI totals were huge, but that's because he got to play in the Kingdome, which was extremely favorable to him and he had an aversion to taking walks. Many impatient hitters will have high RBI totals because they take chances at the expense of doing the more valuable thing, taking the base.

Wynn was the exact opposite. His numbers lacked flash because of his style (low contact, high walk/power), and his RBI totals were downgraded because of his patience. His home park killed him even more than Griffey's helped him. I doubt Griffey could do any much than the .250 BA and .436 SLG in the same conditions (maybe like .260 and .450, but his OBP wouldn't be anywhere near .366).

Wynn was better, the apparent huge difference between them is almost all in contextual differences and the fact Wynn was a hidden star and Griffey a flashy one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only reason he's a tough sale is because traditional stats:

A)Aren't very good in the first place, compared with sabermetrics, and

B)They aren't adjusted for park factors (I even think that in the case of Wynn, the sabermetric adjustment isn't enough). I mean, the Astrodome in the 1960s isn't all that far away from the deadball era.

In this case, ink scores and similariy scores don't do Wynn justice because he played in such hard conditions, he was a great fielder, and his greatness isn't accounted for in the traditional stats such as BA, HR, RBI that ink/similarity scores are based on. Wynn is a special case, and park/era adjusted sabermetric stats are all that should be used to evaluate him, simply because he played in a ridiculously low offensive context. I don't know if Ty Cobb could hit .300 consistently in the same conditions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, Jimmy Wynn was a great player, he just had a low batting average. Like Reggie Jackson, Joe Morgan, Mike Schmidt, and others, people just get so hung up on the batting average that they can't even look at anything else. People look at the BA and RBI and say he wasn't productive offensively. Well, when you see he walked a lot, stole bases, and hit for power, you find a very complete player who could do almost anything on the field.

Secondary average is a stat that quantifies secondary offensive skills (everything but BA). Wynn had a .388 secondary average, which given that he played in the Astrodome in the 1960s is tremendous. If we had a SEC+, I'd bet Wynn may be top 25 all time.

Second, who said Jimmy Wynn made no contribution in the field and basepaths? He was a great baserunner who stole lots of bases, and he is what many call a "ball hawk" in center. Fergie Jenkins named him to his all time team because of his range in center. He was a five-tool player at his peak.

He should be in the Hall of Fame.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Reading

If you are interested in learning more about Jimmy Wynn as a person and his possible case for the HOF, some of these links may help you:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/wynnji01.shtml

http://www.astrosdaily.com/files/team/wynn/wynn.html

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...st-jimmy-wynn/

http://www.thetoycannon.com/

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/keating_2003-03-27_0/

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...62/ai_96992903

[538280]

Once you look at these numbers you can never understand how Ken Griffey, Jr. is considered overrated: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/griffke02.shtml

The only time in his career when he was ever overrated was the fact that he, not Bonds, was named the 1990's Player of the Decade. And he was 2nd best.

I think you know what I'm going to say to this: WARP3 is a rye when it deals with modern players, baseball today and over the past 15 or so years is not as good as 1960s and 1970s baseball. Look at WARP1 and you see how they are very evenly matched. Since I think Wynn's era was stronger, I'd adjust Wynn's numbers up slightly instead of Griffey's, and so Wynn will come out ahead for me.

One thing that I like to do is set up a player's Win Shares in order from their best season to their worst one, adjust for LQ, and multiply the best year by 10, the next best by 9, the third best by 8, and so on. I did that for Wynn giving him a 5% boost for LQ (reasonable in my mind), and Wynn came out about 65 points ahead.

[Ubiquitous]

Once you look at these numbers you can never understand how Ken Griffey, Jr. is considered overrated: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/griffke02.shtml

The only time in his career when he was ever overrated was the fact that he, not Bonds, was named the 1990's Player of the Decade. And he was 2nd best.

Actually for me its the opposite. I look at those numbers and I don't understand why people thought Griffey was such a god. While Griffey was playing people thought he was going to be the greatest player of all time. They thought he could do it all, he was the golden child. Yet those numbers whether you look at WARP1 or WARP3 are rather pedestrian whn compared to the truly greats

[leecemark]

--Did WARP even exist when Griffey was regarded that way (way back when in 2000 )? It certainly wasn't as well known as it is now - and most fans still wouldn't know what you were talking about if you started talked about WARP today (not referring to the obcessive type fans we have here). If you don't adjust for the huge boost Griffey got from the Kingdome then his numbers are pretty awesome. Even you you do his traditional numbers are pretty huge.
--Most of us would agree he comes up short of the big 5/6 (Mays, Cobb, Mantle, Speaker, DiMaggio, Charleston), but the majority of us have him in the top 10 and for many he is the top dog of the next tier.

[wamby]

In the 1990s I thought that Griffey was not much more than a media creation. The NBA was marketing itself as a league of superstars and I always felt that MLB was pimping Griffey in the same way. He was good but he was no Barry Bonds. I thought his induction on the All Century team over guys like Musial and Speaker was hilarious.

[Cyclone792]

Career Win Shares
Griffey-339
Wynn-305

Griffey has 362 career win shares and isn't too bad of a bet to reach 400 for his career.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Nice poll. One of the most underrated players ever, Jimmy Wynn, vs. one of the most overrated players in Ken Griffey, Jr.

Wynn easily. Played in a pitching dominated era; played in the Astrodome; and was pretty much THE only Astro who pitchers feared.

Ummm...Ever here of a second baseman named Joe Morgan?

Junior played in a a bandbox in Seattle; in an era highly conducive to hitting; and played with some other pretty darn good players.

Junior is flash. Wynn was substance. Junior played some of the deepest CF allowing him to go back and make those ESPN highlight over-the-fence catches.

Since when is hitting .300 ,hitting HRs, and playing GG caliber defense just flash? And when is drawing walks all substance? Just asking.

Taking that into consideration I'd take The Toy Cannon on defesne as well.

Griffey-10 Gold Gloves
Wynn- 0 Gold Gloves

Now I'm not saying Griffey deserved all 10 GGs but that's 10 more GGs than Wynn has. That's a lot to ignore.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Once you look at these numbers you can never understand how Ken Griffey, Jr. is considered overrated: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/griffke02.shtml

The only time in his career when he was ever overrated was the fact that he, not Bonds, was named the 1990's Player of the Decade. And he was 2nd best.

No, Barry was named the Sporting News 1990's Player of the Decade.

GIANTS NOTEBOOK

Bonds Honored -- `Player of Decade'
- Glenn Dickey
Saturday, July 10, 1999


BARRY BONDS was honored as the ``Player of the Decade'' by The Sporting News editor John Rawlings in a pregame ceremony last night.

Bonds beat out Ken Griffey Jr., Frank Thomas, Tony Gwynn, Albert Belle, Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux and Dennis Eckersley, among others. Previous winners of the award were Mike Schmidt ('80s), Pete Rose ('70s), Willie Mays ('60s), Ted Williams ('50s) and Stan Musial. The first award was given for the 1946-55 period, before the selection changed to the actual decade.

``Wow,'' Bonds said when told of the previous winners in a press conference. ``They're all Hall of Famers except for Pete Rose, and I think he should be in the Hall. I'm really honored.''

Bonds said he also was proud of beating out a top field from the '90s, and made special mention of Griffey.

Bonds is the first player in major- league history to hit 400 home runs and steal 400 bases, and he is one of three players to have a 40-homer, 40- steal season.

Bonds said just signing a major- league contract was his ``greatest accomplishment.'' After that, he said, ``Everything has been gravy.''

``People said I came back too soon from my elbow surgery,'' he said, ``but I just wanted to be playing the game again. I love baseball.

``I've always tried to give everything I've got to the game. The Giants are paying me a lot of money, and at the end of my career, I don't want anybody to say I didn't earn every penny.''

Bonds praised his teammates for winning despite injuries, to himself and to other key players. ``The younger players, (Russ) Ortiz, (Armando) Rios, everybody who's come up from the minors has really stepped up to the plate when they've had to.

``I think if we're healthy, this is a very strong team, one that compares to the '93 team (which won 103 games.)''

Bonds didn't start last night because of his groin injury but said he was confident he'd be back in the lineup after the All-Star Game. MISCELLANY: Catcher Scott Servais was activated last night and Doug Mirabelli optioned to Triple-A Fresno. ``Mirabelli's ready, but there's no room for him,'' said Giants manager Dusty Baker.

Robb Nen was held out of last night's game but may be used this weekend. An MRI revealed there was no tendon damage to his elbow.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...10/SP58062.DTL

[BoSox Rule]

Damn it, I knew that too. It was the All-Century team, not player of the decade.