Proxy for greatness?

.
sweaver -- What is the formula for Win Shares?
.

[gyb13]

batman, you have to buy the book for that... see this thread: http://www.netshrine.com/vbulletin2/...ead.php?t=2733

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Pedro Ramos somehow lasted about 2500 innings in the big leagues. Somehow, I wouldn't define that as greatness.

[gyb13]

same with bobby witt....

i think IP can correlate well with performance, but are by no means sufficient in evaluation pitchers

[pwdennis]

No but Ramos was a decent pitcher. He played mostly with bad teams (often really bad teams) - with a better team all of his numbers would have looked better. I often wondered about Pedro's age - it was rumored that he was several years older than the listed 1935 birth date.

Originally Posted by SmedIndy

There's no crossover line - Wilhelm and McDaniel were good - Slaton and
Knepper just average at best. Most anyone can see the relievers consistently gave more value even if they pitched less innings than the starter.

Excellent starters are always more valuable than ace relievers, but ace relievers are more valuable than most of the chattel starting in big league games.

You kind of prove my point re. starters. But with relievers, you’re right -- the IP proxy breaks down... or does it?
//

Here’s a weird thing: Just adding wins, saves and complete games (kind of like crediting the starter for being his own closer), we see:

          W+Sv+CG
Slaton       251
Knepper      225
Wilhelm      390
McDaniel     331

This of course has built-in deficiencies: 1) It fails to account statistically for middle relief work; 2) there’s no consideration for the pressure value of a reliever’s situational insertion, i.e. “Leverage”; 3) wins and saves are not equal (right?); and 4) other stuff I’m sure I’m missing.

Nevertheless, taking a random non-comprehensive walk through the pages looking up a few other guys, including the above four, followed with a quick sort, we see:

Note: Not comprehensive

          W+Sv+CG
CYoung     1,277
PGalvin    1,001 * 1875-1892 @ ~50’
WJohnson     982
CMathewson   838
JClarkson    818 * 1882-1894 @ ~50’
GAlexander   832
DEckersley   687
LGrove       653
TLyons       639
SCarlton     585
FJenkins     558
LSmith       549
TSeaver      543
DSutton      507
TJohn        454
RGossage     450
BLemon       417
UShocker     412
Wilhelm      390
McDaniel     331
VMungo       259
Slaton       251
Knepper      225
CErskine     206

By this alone, Eckersley skews out greater than Grove or Carlton? Lee Smith greater than Seaver or Sutton? Ummm, don’t think so. But at least we’re seeing great relievers among great starters. However, the stat alone runs counter to the fact that a reliever is a failed starter.

So what’s to mitigate the results? How about innings pitched, or innings pitched per game (meaning per appearance)?

          W+Sv+CG   IP/G
CYoung     1,277    8.10
PGalvin    1,001    8.52 *
WJohnson     982    7.37
CMathewson   838    7.53
JClarkson    818    8.54 *
GAlexander   832    7.46
DEckersley   687    3.07
LGrove       653    6.40
TLyons       639    7.01
SCarlton     585    7.04
FJenkins     558    6.78
LSmith       549    1.26
TSeaver      543    7.29
DSutton      507    6.82
TJohn        454    6.20
RGossage     450    1.81
BLemon       417    6.19
UShocker     412    6.51
Wilhelm      390    2.11
McDaniel     331    2.17
VMungo       259    5.80
Slaton       251    5.41
Knepper      225    6.09
CErskine     206    5.13

The relationship between the two stats is, I believe, direct. (But determining the value of the save is crucial. Are all saves equal?) Moreover, the stats are straight off the lifetime records pages. Whether we’re dividing for a low revealer, or multiplying for a higher, or mitigating computations with some cross-era enabler such as league OBA or whatever, we’re looking at straight-across numbers that vary not by weights or ancillary measures, but by the talent and strength and endurance of the guy.

I’m envisioning some kind of IP/G (or some other innings-based stat) continuum ranging from, say, 9.00 down to about squat zero (my personal MLB IP/G stat). Laying that against production stats, whichever you choose, seems it ought to illuminate.

The idea is that the better you work, the more work you’re given.

.

[SmedIndy]

No offense to Pud Galvin or John Clarkson, or my beloved 19th century, but they kind of skew this whole thing.

Also - not all saves, wins, OR CGs are equal.

And players that bounce between starter and reliever will skew this. Also, with the advent of the one-inning wonder closer, versus the "real man" closer like Gossage and Fingers, the relief correlation won't be as strong.

BTW - the pitching mound moved before the 1893 season.

I'm thinking that you may have to do this to compare by role and by era. Pitching usage patterns varied in every era, of course.

Originally Posted by gyb13

batman, you have to buy the book for that... see this thread:
http://www.netshrine.com/vbulletin2...read.php?t=2733

Great thread, gyb! Thank you! That thread should be part of some NetShrine newbie orientation.

There are a number of quotes I’d like to excerpt and rail on, but instead I’ll just try to wing some comments and fling out some impressions.

From the critiques posted -- all of which struck me as really astute and savvy and insightful -- the Win Shares hypothesis remains not on the surest of footings. No need for disparagement, just a little salt. You gotta credit the try AND its any validity.

But being not the shiniest brick in the cupboard, nor the sharpest leaf on the lawn; being also a bit lazy (and fat and dumb and ugly, depending on the angle), as well as righthanded -- I have a tough time with really complicated stats. I am forlornly captive to the belief that a guy with a calculator, a decent reference source and an on-field understanding of the game can both recognize greatness and measure it from the straight stats.

Understanding guys cross-era -- convincingly -- seems the next big challenge. Am I wrong?

.

[gyb13]

well, feel free to start new threads discussing any of the points raised in those other threads...

simplicity is numbers is a good thing... having said that, the addition of W+CG+S doesn't seem to improve our knowledge on the subject... i don't see what it really adds

.

Originally Posted by SmedIndy

No offense to Pud Galvin or John Clarkson, or my beloved 19th century, but they kind of skew this whole thing.

Also - not all saves, wins, OR CGs are equal.

And players that bounce between starter and reliever will skew this. Also, with the advent of the one-inning wonder closer, versus the "real man" closer like Gossage and Fingers, the relief correlation won't be as strong.

BTW - the pitching mound moved before the 1893 season.

I'm thinking that you may have to do this to compare by role and by era. Pitching usage patterns varied in every era, of course.

Smedy -- What a rich post! I’m gonna have to take it on a line-by -- mostly muddlings and ruminations at this point.

No offense to Pud Galvin or John Clarkson, or my beloved 19th century, but they kind of skew this whole thing.

They really do, huh? The discombobulation of that establishing era is, I believe, measurable.


-- What if: Run a straight percentage era adjustment based on the number of major league teams extant. Therein we might see talent pool v. talent opportunity v. population (i.e. “starters per million” or whatever). Base 16 would probably have to suffice as mark zero, since that, 16, is the number of teams operating for the longest period of time. But it doesn’t have to that. Base 20, following the ‘62 expansion, marks about the latter part of the center of baseball history. That may be the base to work with going forward.

B.G. -- The yearly average number of 19th century teams was about 13.32. That number varied widely from year to year, from a low of about 6-8 teams, to a high of what? Twenty-six? That concentration and dilution of the talent pool, mixed with rookies, learning guys and vets, factoring in the unfathomable balls required of the guys to adjust and succeed in such an up-and-down environment, seems to offer insight into the meaning of 19th century guys. However, it begs year-by-year calculations and adherences, and, I think, player league-stat assignment.


-- What if: Downsize 19th century guys’ stats by some divider based upon the measurably smaller distance of the mound to the plate. (Who can really understand it qualitatively? But the distance on the tape measure, before, during and after, is recorded.) It’s a negative multiplier, a number less than one (60 feet, 6 inches = 1), i.e.:

Note: More for example than accuracy:

          W+Sv+CG  (mound distance then/now)
PGalvin    1,001 x [say] 50/60.6 [~82.51%]    = 826
JClarkson    818 x     . . .     [~82.51%]    = 675

Even CY is partially susceptible to this adjustment.

With their numbers chopped by a measurable, historical adjustment -- in this example, by the reduced distance between the mound and the plate -- Pud and Clarkson come down from skewy La-La-land into the (albeit awesome and [still] incredible) “modern reaity zone.” Incredible because their names are not among the usual leaderboard guys we’re used to looking at -- at least not without winking.

A wink is kind of an acknowledgement of validity, but without its concession.


Aside:

These 19th century guys were playing for money in the east while Custer and Wild Bill and Earp and Billy the Kid were doing their things in the west; while Cleveland was president and president again; while Edison was only starting to lay wire. (Okay, I’m dramatizing, but I’m trying for a point here, eh?) Were the tough guys of the west much different from the tough guys of the east? And whom among those eastern tough guys played ball for money? -- were ABLE to play ball for money? And are the tough guys of today (who play ball for money) able to sustain the difficulties of life that the 19th century tough guys put up with?

Smedy -- I won’t catch the balance of this line-by on this post.

.

.
Gyb13 -- No, I'm trying to stay on-topic: Innings pitched as a proxy for pitching greatness. Not looking for the pure -- nothing's pure -- but for the scratch mitigators.
.

[KCBOOMER]

There is no single statistic that guarantees you are looking at greatness unless you make it intensely restrictive (Innings > 4500, Wins > 325, etc.).

If you insist on one metric the only one that comes close is RSAA. Just about everyone above 275 is very good. Don't look for any relievers other than Wilhelm, though.

[SmedIndy]

I don't think discounting innings based on pitching distance is valid. It's not like they had an advantage over the others in the league. They were handed the ball.

Pitching distance, I feel, doesn't distort many stats. The other rules of the era (how many balls constitute a walk, how a pitcher could throw, etc.) skewed the stats. Along with the plethora of teams in 1884 and 1890.

It was a different time, obviously. We won't see people like Pud or Old Hoss any more. But someone could be the Pud or Old Hoss of our time, much like I think Maddux is the Kid Nichols of our time.

[pathogan]

...Im in unsteady waters here, but no one has DISPROVED Batman's theory [yet]. The formula seems allright to me,and Yeah, G, sometimes simplicity is a good thing

[sweaver]

You mean the IP + W + Sv bit, Pat? It's OK, if you think it's reasonable that Eckersley is the 7th greatest pitcher ever.

I don't.