WAA (now available on BBR) top 50 for pitchers

[Bothrops Atrox]

Months ago, there were a lot of people on BBF talking about or asking about WAA. Many claimed they liked it more than WAR since they preferred a higher baseline. Some people claim that WAA focuses a little more on how well a pitcher pitched and a little less on how much they pitched. Some prefer one to the other. Some don't care. Either way, here it is. There weren't any places that I knew of that listed players' WAAs until Baseball Reference did so a few weeks ago. They still do not have career rankings, but I did manage to figure out the top 50 pitchers, so I though I would share it in case anybody is interested.

A few notes: 1. Comparing it to the WAR list, you will notice how much more recent players move up compared to older players as more of the older pitchers' WAR was replacement- based. 2. It looks like WAA is not AL vs. NL adjusted like WAR is, so pitchers from stronger leagues (say 1960's NL or 2000's AL) might be underrated to the tune of say 4-8 WAA depending on how much playing-time they had. 3. Pitcher offensive WAA is included. 4. WAA totals are rounded, of course. The higher-ranked pitcher does have the decimal advantage on this list. 5. Take all of it with a grain of salt if you wish. I am not necessarily supporting or dismissing it - just presenting it. If I do see something I like or dislike, I may comment on it. There are plenty of threads on this site which hammer-away on WAR and WAA. It would make me happy if this didn't become one of them, as it is mostly a reference point. Well, with a few comments here or there.

Anyway, if nothing else but for kicks, here is the list:

1. Walter Johnson - 110
2. Cy Young - 104
3. Roger Clemens - 100
(My gosh, nobody is close to the Big Train, the Rocket, and the guy they named that little award after)

4. Pete Alexander - 80
5. Kid Nichols - 74
6. Tom Seaver - 70
7. Greg Maddux - 67
8. Lefty Grove - 66
9. Randy Johnson - 65
10. Christy Mathewson -64
11. Pedro Martinez - 59
(That is a heck-a-lot of WAA packed into such a small amount of innings)

12. Bob Gibson - 55
13. Curt Schilling - 53
14. Bert Blyleven - 51
(I have always been on the "Bert For the HOF" bandwagon, but this still doesn't look quite right )

15. Eddie Plank -51
(Do Plank's consistent high ranks in the various WAR/WAA metrics suggest we are uniformly underrating him?)

16. Phil Niekro - 50
(I really thought stripping out replacement from Nikero would hurt him more than this)

17. Tim Keefe - 50
18. Mike Mussina - 49
19. Warren Spahn - 49
20. John Clarkson - 47
21. Tom Glavine - 47
(Can we put the silly "lack of dominance" argument to rest?)

22. Steve Carlton - 46
23. Fergie Jenkins - 44
24. Jim McCormick - 44
(HOFer?)

25. Roy Halladay - 43
(With a lot to go; has a realistic chance of breaking into the top 11 or so)

26. Gaylord Perry - 42
27. Robin Roberts - 42
28. Bob Caruthers - 41
(Includes WAA as position player)

29. John Smoltz - 41
30. Hal Newhouser - 40
31. Kevin Brown - 40
32. Rick Rueschel - 40
(One of these days we are going to find that THING that is overrating Big Daddy in these metrics. BBPro and BBGauge both have Rueschel light-years worse than Sean Smith/BBref's system)

33. Charles Radbourn - 39
34. Tony Mullane - 38
(This is the point where it becomes painfully obvious that 19th century guys will always be overrated in these types of metrics without adjustments)

35. Ed Walsh - 38
36. Carl Hubbell - 38
37. Amos Rusie - 37
38. Bret Saberhagen - 37
(We can really see the impact of losing the replacement level points here, in case Schilling didn't already do that for you)

39. Dazzy Vance - 36
40. David Cone - 36
41. Al Spalding - 36
42. Wes Ferrell - 36
(You can clearly see the impact of including pitcher offensive WAA right here)

43. Luis Tiant - 35
44. Don Drysdale - 35
45. Roy Oswalt - 35
46. Johan Santana - 35
(See comments on Bret Saberhagen in relation to both Oswalt and Santana)

47. Charlie Buffington - 34
(This is the point where it becomes even more painfully obvious that 19th century guys will always be overrated in these types of metrics without adjustments)

48. Jim Palmer - 34
49. Tommy Bond - 34
(This is the point where it becomes even laughably painfully obvious that 19th century guys will always be overrated in these types of metrics without adjustments)

50. Nolan Ryan - 33
Moredcai Brown-33
Urban Shocker -33


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

For comparison sake, here is the top 50 list for baseball References WAR (v 2.1):

W. Johnson
Cy Young
Roger Clemens
Pete Alexander
Kid Nichols
Tom Seaver
Greg Maddux
Lefty Grove
Christy Mathewson
Randy Johnson
Warren Spahn
Phil Niekro
Bert Blyleven
Bob Gibson
Eddie Plank
Steve Carlton
Gaylord Perry
Tim Keefe
Pedro Martinez
Robin Roberts
John Clarkson
Fergie Jenkins
Mike Mussina
Tom Glavine
Curt Schilling
Nolan Ryan
Jim McCormick
Charles Radbourn
Pud Galvin
Rick Rueschel
John Smoltz
Amos Rusie
Ted Lyons
Carl Hubbell
Jim Palmer
Al Spalding
Kevin Brown
Red Ruffing
Don Drysdale
Roy Halladay
Luis Tiant
Ed Walsh
Tony Mullane
Don Sutton
Tommy Bond
Juan Marichal
Vic Willis
David Cone
Bobby Mathews


As expected, some shifts up and down, but enough to warrant the cries of those in favor of WAA? I'll leave that for you to decide. I guess you could look at the two lists, see which passes the sniff test best, and decide between the replacement vs. no-replacement debate that way. I can't decide which passed the sniff-test for me best yet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More comments:

-The lack of Koufax (28), Marichal (31), Feller (32), Waddell (32) etc. shows that despite stripping out the replacement component, WAA is still a cumulative stat too, and longevity still helps rack up WAA. All four would be coming up soon, of course. I actually have the top 100 ranked, but knew that would bore everybody and didn't feel like working that hard.

- The highest full-time reliever is Mariano Rivera at 32 WAA. Eck is at 31. Wilhelm at 24. Gossage at 16. Hoffman at 15. I am not sure if LI is applied to WAA or just the replacement level included in WAR.

-Top 5 active pitchers not listed: Tim Hudson (32), Mo Rivera (31), CC Sabathia (30), Andy Pettitte (28), Mark Buehrle (26)

-Eligible post 1800's pitchers with over 30 WAA, but not in the HOF: Rueschel (40), K. Brown (40), Saberhagen (37), Ferrel (36), Cone (36), Tiant (35) Shocker (33), Stieb (30), Appier (30)

- A few other pitchers of potential interest: Sutton (21 WAA out of 61 WAR). If anybody reached the most of their HOF value by just showing up... Whitey Ford (32 out of 54 WAR) if anybody reached the least amount of their HOF value by just showing up...


Hope this is of some use for anybody, considering I spent 2 hours working on it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[JDanger]

Excellent! This is great news.

I love WAA as a HoF evaluator. And while everyone recognizes that no particular one stat should be used to size up a player's Hall of Fame candidacy, WAA is certainly the first stat I look at when heading down that road.

[Second Base Coach]

Once again, I am left wondering about fellas with some time on their hands a lot of numbers and data in front of them.

Rick Rueschel was not, repeat, was not one of the best pitchers in baseball history.

We are looking waaaay to much at home runs against and walks allowed. I know these are two of the stats that modern day number crunchers love to talk about because they are two of the three items that pitchers can seemingly control, but how can we consider him to be among the very best in baseball history if he allowed more than one hit per inning, games one to games started ratio is only forty percent, and his ERA plus is a nice but not knock your socks off great 114.

[Bothrops Atrox]

Once again, I am left wondering about fellas with some time on their hands a lot of numbers and data in front of them.

Rick Rueschel was not, repeat, was not one of the best pitchers in baseball history.

We are looking waaaay to much at home runs against and walks allowed. I know these are two of the stats that modern day number crunchers love to talk about because they are two of the three items that pitchers can seemingly control, but how can we consider him to be among the very best in baseball history if he allowed more than one hit per inning, games one to games started ratio is only forty percent, and his ERA plus is a nice but not knock your socks off great 114.

In defense, his horrific defenses cost him a lot on his ERA+, as did playing in Wrigley for so long. And the HR and BB run value are not arbitrary or made up; we know how much the average HR and BB cost a pitcher. Either way, this variation of WAR uses a pitcher's runs allowed and adjusts for park and defense, so it doesn't care one bit how he prevented his runs, so it doesn't matter one bit.

If your issue is regarding DIPS, definitely don't look at Fangraph's WAR.