All-Time Win Shares update
SPORTING GOODS
Win Shares, although not perfect, is still one of the better ways to be able to statistically compare the accomplishments of players across eras. I did this last year, and it's time to do it again. I'll provide an updated rank, along with the number of Win Shares for a few key players. Active players in bold, my comments in italics1. Babe Ruth (756)
2. Ty Cobb (722)
3. Barry Bonds (666)
4. Honus Wagner (655)
5. Hank Aaron (643)
6. Willie Mays (642)
7. Cy Young (634)
8. Tris Speaker (630)
9. Stan Musial (604)
10. Eddie Collins (574)
Well, after a season that did almost nothing to add to his total, Bonds is still two years away from second place, and three from first. I doubt he catches Ruth at this point, because we don't know if Barry's body will hold up for three more years, if his mind will want to play three more, or if his chemical-free body will produce enough to catch Ruth even if he is around. In actuality, it's probably Ruth's pitching that separates them. Still, sitting anywhere in that top 6, with the Babe, Cobb, Wagner, Aaron, and Mays, is pretty damn good any way you look at it.
11. Mickey Mantle
12. Walter Johnson
13. Ted Williams
14. Pete Rose
15. Rickey Henderson (534)
16. Mel Ott
17. Frank Robinson
18. Joe Morgan
19. Rogers Hornsby
20. Nap Lajoie (496)
Ho hum, another list of ten of the all-time greats. Anyone who doesn't vote for Rickey on the first ballot for the hall of fame should have his/her rights examined. Anyone else already looking forward to Rickey's induction speech? Rickey knows that Rickey is.
21. Lou Gehring
22. Carl Yastrzemski
23. Kid Nichols
24. Pete Alexander
25. Mike Schmidt (467)
26. Eddie Mathews
27. Sam Crawford
28. Reggie Jackson
29. Al Kaline
30. Eddie Murray (437)
Not as impressive, but 10 more hall of famers. A lot of guys who produced near the top for a long time, racking up stats over 20 years or so. Of course, win shares is a counting stat, so these guys are up on the list here as well. Anyone seen any current players recently?
31. Jimmie Foxx
32. George Brett
33. Cal Ripken Jr.
34. Christy Mathewson
35. Roger Clemens (423)
35. Paul Waner
35. Robin Yount
38. Dave Winfield
39. Craig Biggio (414)
39. Paul Molitor
Hey, a whole bunch of guys who played in my lifetime (7 of the 10 in this decile). Clemens moved from 45 to 35 this past year, I didn't think he had it in him. Most guys are just adding a few win shares a year at the "end" of their career, but the way he is cranking, if Roger plays and did this again in '06 he'd be up to 27th. Right now he's 6th all time among pitchers, and the top 5 all pitched before the depression. At this point, someone has to really make a well-thought out argument to convince me he's not the greatest pitcher, or at least second best, of all time. The bastard. Meanwhile, Biggio is right there with Yount and Molitor. Doesn't that just seem right? But there he is, just in case you weren't sure if he was hall of fame material.
41. Tim Keefe
42. Warren Spahn
43. Monte Ward
44. Willie McCovey
45. Pud Galvin (403)
46. Fred Clarke
47. Gary Sheffield (401)
48. George Davis
49. Tony Gwynn
50. John Clarkson
Anyone else surprised to see Sheffield here? What a great career he ended up putting together, and still is. Say what you want about Sheffield and his mustache, but just look where he is, up from 72nd after another great year. He's surrounded by hall of famers here (albeit, a bunch I know very little about). I'm just sayin'.
51. Rafael Palmeiro (395)
52. Wade Boggs (394)
52. Bill Dahlen
54. Lefty Grove
55. Old Hoss Radbourn
56. Tim Raines (390)
57. Jesse Burkett
58. Tom Seaver
58. Jeff Bagwell (388)
Palemeiro, whether he plays again or not, is going to be an interesting one for the hall of fame. But I'm more looking forward to Raines's vote. The more I read about him, the more I think he is a hall of famer. The more I think about how I was following baseball for most of his career, the more I think he isn't a hall of famer. Was Montreal the reason he never really got recognized as a superstar? Probably. Meanwhile, for Bagwell it looks like he won't advance. Even a decent year in 2005 and he'd be up with Sheff, but he just can't get back on the field with his bum shoulder. Still, #58 and ahead of Joltin' Joe; not bad for a kid from Killingworth, Connecticut who was traded for a crappy short reliever. And yes, I am bitter.
60. Joe DiMaggio (387)
61. Rod Carew
62. Charlie Gehringer
63. Cap Anson
64. Zack Wheat
65. Luke Appling (378)
66. Roberto Clemente
67. Yogi Berra
67. Roberto Alomar
67. Al Simmons
70. Phil Niekro
70. Billy Williams (374)
Remember when Robbie Alomar was a lock for the hall of fame? Out of sight, out of mind I guess. And talk about counting stats, look how high Phil Niekro is. Longevity was the key there. Maybe Wakefield can get up here in about 30 more years.
72. Willie Stargell
73. Greg Maddux (369)
73. Gaylord Perry
75. Carlton Fisk
76. Steve Carlton (366)
76. Frankie Frisch
77. Roger Connor
77. Darrell Evans
79. Frank Thomas (362)
80. Ken Griffey Jr. (361)
Bill James rates Darrell Evans as one of the most underrated players of all time. I remember him as a DH, who struck out a lot, hit a lot of homers, and didn't do much else. But apparantly he was a decent third baseman with a high on-base every year, the kind of guy who would be much more appreciated in 2005 than he was in 1980.
80. Eddie Plank
82. Rusty Staub
83. Johnny Bench
83. Harry Heilmann
83. Brooks Robinson (356)
83. Arky Vaughan
87. Dan Brouthers
87. Ed Delahanty
89. Goose Goslin
90. Sherry Magee (354)
90. Mickey Welch
Just finished a very good book about the 2004 Red Sox called "Mind Game," and the name Arky Vaughan came up quite a bit when the authors (Baseball Prospectus) talked about just how good Nomar was the first 5-6 years of his career. Vaughan was the only guy who could compare to A-Rod and Nomar when it came to the impressive starts they got off to. Who knew?
92. Duke Snider
93. Max Carey
93. Lou Whitaker
94. Tony Perez
95. Loug Brock (348)
96. Dwight Evans
97. Ryne Sandberg
98. Bobby Wallace
99. George Van Haltren
100. Dick Allen (342)
101. Mark McGwire
102. Andre Dawson (340)
Dewey! The last 30 or so in the top 100 is pretty much hall of famers and borderline hall of famers. You can make the case that means that guys like Dewey and Sweet Lou Whitaker don't get enough attention. Or you can make the case that guys like Andre Dawson get too much attention.
So that wraps it up for the top 100 after 2005, with not too much movement really expected in 2006. So who else is close?
Alex Rodriguez is already at 318, hanging around with Alan Trammell and Bob Gibson, along with guys like Jack Clark, Joe Torre, and Pee Wee Reese. Two more seasons like 2005, and he'd be pushing the top 50. Even one more season like last year puts him in the 80s.
Larry Walker (done), Sammy Sosa (possibly done) and Mike Piazza (not quite) are at 311/313/310, in line with Willie "that's a lot of meat" Randolph, Joe Mudwick, Keith Hernandez, Orlando Cepeda, and Jim Palmer. That's borderline hall-of-fame territory for most positions, but for a catcher I'd guess that is good enough. At this point, I think Sosa may be out; two years ago I would not have said that.
Manny Ramirez (310) is hanging around there as well, but unlike the previous 3, he hopefully has a lot of 30 win share seasons left in him. He can have the hall of fame spot vacated by Sammy Sosa. Thanks Sammy, always so selfless.
Finally, sitting between 299 and 303, but unlikely to get very far into the top 100, are Bernie Williiams, Randy Johnson, John Olerud, and Jeff Kent.
Studying these lists like I have done, there is one major thing I've noticed. Either starting pitchers are undervalued by Win Shares, or they are overvalued by the general public compared to star batters. The same goes for closers, except for the difference is even more pronounced, as Mariano is in the company of guys like Cecil Fielder and Dave Henderson, and I don't think that really captures his importance or dominance. Of course, I'm not nearly smart enough to explain it, or to fix it, if this really is a deficiency. Are Dave Henderson's 600 at bats and 1,350 innings in the field more valuable than the 200 batters Mariano faces per year? I'm just not equipped to really answer that.
So in 2006, the baseball nerd in me will keep looking to see if next year there will be a metric that better exemplifies the top 100. Some people go fishing, some take up needlepoint...
posted by Darlucky at 2/16/2006 02:51:00 PM
4 Comments:
I agree with O, Biggio is a huge surprise. As a Piazza fan, I can't believe he is so low. That disconnect is one reason I'm not sold on the Win Shares stat. (Along with DiMaggio being behind Tim Raines and 58 others.) If I were to tell you that you could have Biggio or Piazza as rookies today, knowing what their career numbers are going to be, would anyone take Biggio? It just doesn't make sense to me.
And as Darlucky pointed out, the stat is completely skewed towards hitting. There should be way more pitchers on this list...
I have to disagree with Darlucky though in his comment that Win Shares is good way to compare players from different generations. Players back in the day just didn't play as long without injury. Because of sports medicine, conditioning, and steroids, players today have much longer careers. That is the only way someone like Palmeiro puts up the numbers he did. Maybe Win Shares can be used to compare the primes of different players' careers, but they shouldn't be used to compare entire careers. Lesser players compile statistics to a degree that was not so 50 years ago. I would love to see a comparison of different hitters in their six best consecutive seasons rather than their whole careers. I suspect players from the older generations would fare better.
point taken, and I don't see win shares as being equal to the ranking of best players ever. it's a counting stat, so it would be equivalent to saying that the list of the best hitters goes 1. Rose 2. Cobb, etc. based on number of hits, or that Blylevn is a better strikeout pitcher than Pedro when he pitched a gazillion more innings.
when bill james (inventor of win shares) did his player rankings, he took total win shares as one of about 6 or 7 things he took into account, with sergio's suggestion being right on, with (best 3 consecutive seasons and best 5 consecutive seasons as well as win shares per season being 3 of the other measures).
Craig Biggio has played 800 more games than Joe Dimaggio. while no one would take Biggio over Dimaggio, what makes it a bit closer is asking yourself, what if I could get 5 extra YEARS of an all-star second baseman (where talent is scarce), how much does that close the gap?
so win shares only is useful as equating to greatest of all time as total hits is to great hitters or as total home runs is to best power hitters or career rushing yards is to best running backs, etc.
Still, it makes you look at people in a new way doesn't it?
I mean, Craig Biggio, averaged over 162 game season, gives you a .370 OBP, .285 AVG, 26 steals, 38 doubles, 16 homers, 17 HBP!, 107 runs, and 67 RBI's. and he averaged that for 16 seasons worth of games. He should be talked about in the same sentence as Molitor, Yount, and other guys with long careers that played at that kind of level.
Finally - I think you probably need different categories for pitching and hitting. I wish there was a better way to compare them, there just doesn't seem to be yet.
I agree with you. Like most stats, Win Shares are most useful because they give us something more to argue about.
Boy, you're dead right abou Biggio. This guy is a monster. If he played in L.A, New York, Boston or Chicago, we wouldn't be having any of these discussions about if he is worthy or not to be in the Hall.
Always so educational - even in the comments. Thank you, Daily 411, for once again expanding my sporting horizons.
Post a Comment
<< Home