Rube Waddell - most underrated pitcher ever?

[torez77]

Man, if there is one pitcher in history that I think is vastly underrated, it's Rube Waddell. In my opinion, he should be mentioned with names like Johnson, Mathewson and Alexander. He was definitely the greatest left-handed pitcher of his era. He was a rarity for that time period, a fireballing lefty that led the league in K's for 6 straight years. His K's per 9 innings blew away the other pitchers in the league. He was in a class by himself. His lifetime 2.16 ERA is 6th best all-time and just nips Walter Johnson by .001. Will somebody please tell me why he doesn't get the respect he deserves??? Is it because he wasn't so bright upstairs? If that's the reason, then it's a shame.

[ElHalo]

Uh, I know a great many people, including myself, who rank him as one of the ten greatest pitchers of all time. I don't really see how he's underrated.

[leecemark]

--He's definately considered by pretty much everyone at least one notch below Johnson, Mathewson and Alexander becasue he didn't excell nearly as long as they did. He is somewhat comparable to Sandy Koufax in that regard.
--There is a(nother) debate currently in progress about wether Koufax is overrated (or underrated). I think 50 years from now when everybody who actually saw Koufax pitch is gone you could start a thread asking the exact same question about Sandy you just asked about Rube. Less the comment about his lack of mental prowess of course.

[cjedmonton]

Great to see ol' Rube the topic of a thread. Personally, I have him ranked as the 9th greatest lefty ever, and certainly one of the greatest of his era as well (along with Eddie Plank). In fact, his 2.161 career ERA ranks as the best post-1900 mark for any lefty (with at least 1,500 innings pitched) and his 349 strikeouts in 1904 still stands as the American League record for a southpaw.

Here's a great snippet on Waddell (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/w/waddell_rube.stm)

Southpaw Legacy (http://www.geocities.com/cjraleigh)

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v192/cjedmonton/waddell.jpg

[torez77]

Uh, I know a great many people, including myself, who rank him as one of the ten greatest pitchers of all time. I don't really see how he's underrated.

It just seems to me I never hear him mentioned with the more famous names of his era. I think Leecemark probably hit it on the head that the reason is Waddell didn't last as long as the others, and didn't win nearly as many games. That probably had something to do with his intelligence.

[Bill Burgess]

Love to hear about the Rube. He belongs in anyone's top 25 list of Pitchers.

He's my closer on my A team. His autism didn't seem to limit him, once he was on the mound. It was getting him there that was the challenge. His speed was probably 93-97, whereas I estimate Johnson's speed as 100-105.

Plus Waddell had his fast curve, which was like Koufax's, no loss of speed, breaks was a foot or two. They said Rube's hands were huge. He could almost wrap his thumb and forefinger all the way around the ball, which required HUGE hands.

Bill Burgess

[Eddie Collins]

I cannot be convinced that the big Train threw 100-105 mph....

[Bill Burgess]

I can't say that the Rube is under-rated. It's just that few ever bring him up. But he is universally seen as one of the best ever. But not perhaps a championship pitcher, due to his unreliability. But once he was on the mound, he was absolutely brilliant. I love the Rube.

Bill Burgess

[torez77]

I thought I'd bring this thread back and post Walter Johnson's opinions about Rube, who IMO is the most underrated pitcher ever. You've seen this on the Historical Articles thread, but I thought it deserved a place here. It's nice to see Rube getting his props from the greatest pitcher ever.

Walter Johnson on Rube Waddell:

In my opinion, and I suppose if there is any subject that I am qualified to discuss it is pitching. Rube Waddell had more sheer pitching ability than any man I ever saw. That doesn't say he was the greatest pitcher, by a good deal. Rube had defects of character that prevented him from using his talents to the best effect. He is dead and gone, so there is no need for me to enlarge on his weaknesses. They were well enough known. I would prefer to dwell on his strong points. And he had plenty.

There is one game that stands out in my memory above all, perhaps, that I have pitched. That was a game fairly early in my career, when I hooked up in a pitching duel with Rube Waddell.

Rube was a queer character and he could get indisposed more quickly than anyone I ever saw, when the mood seized him.

That day we scored a run off him in the first inning. This didn't please Rube at all. He wasn't feeling particularly ambitious that day, and as he came in to the bench, he started to limp. His leg, it seemed, hurt him a good deal. We had a coach at the time who had a deep knowledge of human nature and a particular knowledge of Rube Waddell's nature. He started after Rube, without an instant's delay. "You'd better be getting on your way to the showers," he said. "If you don't get out of the box, we'll knock you out."

Somehow, that remark got under Rube's skin. He really was a sensitive soul under it all. He made up his mind that he wouldn't quit. Instead, he came back the next inning with blood in his eyes, and from then on he gave the greatest exhibition of all-round speed and unhittable curves that I ever looked at. They scored a run off me, meantime, to tie up the tally. The game drifted into extra innings. In the eleventh inning they scored another run and beat me by 2 to 1.

In those eleven innings Rube struck out seventeen Washington players. Most of the time they were choking up on the bat and just trying to keep from getting struck out. But Rube burned them past in spite of everything.

There have been many arguments about pitchers' speed. Such arguments invariably hinge on personal opinion. When Waddell had a red letter day such as the one I have mentioned, and cut loose with everything he had, he showed an amazing amount of speed. But Rube was erratic and uncertain, and his pitching was decidedly unequal.

[Brian McKenna]

i think waddell is actually very well respected - best strikeout per game ratio prior to wwii - to me i always thought addie joss was the most overlooked pitcher of the 20th century

[torez77]

i always thought addie joss was the most overlooked pitcher of the 20th century

Joss is probably my #2 most underrated pitcher ever.

[538280]

i think waddell is actually very well respected - best strikeout per game ratio prior to wwii - to me i always thought addie joss was the most overlooked pitcher of the 20th century

Joss is extremely overrated. He had a very short career because of his premature death of course, and he really wasn't nearly as dominant in that time as he's made out to be. Is it possibly for such a dominating pitcher to only have 19 points of black ink? Robin Roberts had 62 points of black ink in his peak, and actually pitched a little bit after his peak (unlike Joss), and yet we have lots of people rating Joss ahead of him in the pitcher poll.

He really has no business in the HOF, and Rube Waddell may not deserve it either, although he is very close and with all the fame he has may be a worhty selection.

[julusnc]

My top 5 underrated pitchers of all - time

#1. Kid Nichols
#2. Addie Joss
#3. Eddie Plank
#4. Rube Waddell
#5. Robin Roberts

[torez77]

Joss is extremely overrated. He had a very short career because of his premature death of course, and he really wasn't nearly as dominant in that time as he's made out to be. Is it possibly for such a dominating pitcher to only have 19 points of black ink? Robin Roberts had 62 points of black ink in his peak, and actually pitched a little bit after his peak (unlike Joss), and yet we have lots of people rating Joss ahead of him in the pitcher poll.

He really has no business in the HOF, and Rube Waddell may not deserve it either, although he is very close and with all the fame he has may be a worhty selection.

I agree Roberts is also underrated.

However, saying that Joss has no business in the HOF is ridiculous. His 1.89 ERA is 2nd all-time, adjusted ERA+ of 142 is 10th all-time. His 8.7 baserunners per 9 innings happens to be 1st all-time. He had a short career, but it was an excellent one, HOF worthy without question.

Waddell is not "very close" to HOF worthiness. He IS HOF worthy.

I feel that Joss, Waddell, and other pitchers from that era such as Ed Walsh, Mordecai Brown and Smokey Joe Wood don't get the credit they deserve. They shouldn't be mentioned quite in the same breath as the Big 4 from that era (Johnson, Alexander, Mathewson, Young), but they are just below them IMO. I may be stretching it with Smokey Joe, but at his peak he was awesome and Walter once said no man alive can throw harder than Smokey Joe.

[538280]

I agree Roberts is also underrated.

However, saying that Joss has no business in the HOF is ridiculous. His 1.89 ERA is 2nd all-time, adjusted ERA+ of 142 is 10th all-time. His 8.7 baserunners per 9 innings happens to be 1st all-time. He had a short career, but it was an excellent one, HOF worthy without question.


You don't think the era he played in has anything to do with those raw numbers? Joss played in an era where pitchers dominated the game. In determing his HOF credentials we should look at how good he actually was independant of time and place. Don't be fooled by the environment he pitched under.

The ERA+ is very good, but that also has a lot to do with the era he pitched in, because it was easier to separate from the pack. Plus, he died before he could have a decline, and decline periods can be horrible for career rate stats. Just ask Reggie Jackson.

When normalizing for all these things (league strength, offensive context, defense behind him, etc.), Joss comes out with an ERA of 3.77. The all time norm is set at 4.50. Most HOFers are lower than that, and Joss had a much shorter career than almost all of them.

[jalbright]

However, saying that Joss has no business in the HOF is ridiculous. His 1.89 ERA is 2nd all-time, adjusted ERA+ of 142 is 10th all-time. His 8.7 baserunners per 9 innings happens to be 1st all-time. He had a short career, but it was an excellent one, HOF worthy without question.

......
I feel that Joss, Waddell, and other pitchers from that era such as Ed Walsh, Mordecai Brown and Smokey Joe Wood don't get the credit they deserve. They shouldn't be mentioned quite in the same breath as the Big 4 from that era (Johnson, Alexander, Mathewson, Young), but they are just below them IMO. I may be stretching it with Smokey Joe, but at his peak he was awesome and Walter once said no man alive can throw harder than Smokey Joe.

Well, I'm glad we don't have to debate that at least Walter Johnson, Mathewson and Cy Young are all superior to Joss. Joss finishes 11th among pitchers in the decade 1900-09 behind those three, McGinnity, Waddell, Vic Willis, Plank, Three Finger Brown, Chesbro, Doc White and Jack Powell. I can see putting Joss ahead of White and Powell on peak performance. I look at six categories for guys in this era: Black Ink, Gray ink, HOF standards, career win shares, win share total in his best three seasons, and best win share total in five consecutive seasons. We'll go through the comparison to Chesbro in detail below in a moment. Of the HOFers (thus leaving out White and Powell), Joss can only edge Plank in gray ink, tie Waddell in HOF standards, and get Willis in HOF standards and best five consecutive, at least in that decade. He gets swamped on career wins shares by every one of them and often is significantly behind these guys in at least most of these categories. Even if we cut it down to 8 seasons in the decade like Joss (who only managed 7 more win shares from 1910 on), these guys are still beating him.

The real coup de grace for Joss's case in my mind, though, is the comparison to Jack Chesbro:

......................................Chesbro..... .............Joss
black ink..................................27........... ...........19
gray ink.................................130........... ..........143
HOF standards..........................40............. .........47
career win shares.....................209.................... 191
win shares in 00-09..................203.....................184
win shares in best 8 yrs.............195.....................184
best 3 yrs of win shares.............103.......................88
best 5 consecutive win shares.....143.....................131

I threw in the decade and best 8 seasons figures to try and give Joss a break, but it did no good. There's 130 years of baseball, and we've got 70 major league pitchers or so in the Hall. That works out to about a decade on average if we leave out the last decade. If you want to push it to 7 or 8 by taking fewer 19th century guys and eliminating duplicates, OK--but we already have 8 from the decade before getting to Joss versus Chesbro. The selection of Chesbro has drawn a lot of flak, but if we're only going to take Chesbro or Joss, I take Chesbro hands down.

I might add that only three of the ten most similar pitchers to Joss are in the HOF, and two of them are Candy Cummings (for his supposed invention of the curve) and Monte Ward (who had about two other HOF caliber careers in baseball, one as a shortstop and another as a executive type).

Jim Albright

[Brian McKenna]

wow - the history of the game and the value of individuals boiled down to a few numbers - my least favorite aspect of bbf

[Imapotato]

--He's definately considered by pretty much everyone at least one notch below Johnson, Mathewson and Alexander becasue he didn't excell nearly as long as they did. He is somewhat comparable to Sandy Koufax in that regard.
--There is a(nother) debate currently in progress about wether Koufax is overrated (or underrated). I think 50 years from now when everybody who actually saw Koufax pitch is gone you could start a thread asking the exact same question about Sandy you just asked about Rube. Less the comment about his lack of mental prowess of course.


That's my take

To me Koufax and Waddell are so similiar

They are all time greats, but the truly greats have dominace AND longevity

So basically my all time favorite ballplayer (I can cite off any Waddell story and he is how I started researching deadball and 19th century baseball) just has that one knock on him

He was a little inconsistent as well...which is amazing...imagine how good he could of been? But then again...if he wasn't so eccentric would he have ever been as great?
Hmmmmm

[Imapotato]

wow - the history of the game and the value of individuals boiled down to a few numbers - my least favorite aspect of bbf


wow, and I thought you and I wouldn't see eye to eye on alot of issues...at least we agree on this one.

I despise that a number is the tell all can't argue metric

"figures don't lie but liars figure"

[Imapotato]

Joss is extremely overrated. He had a very short career because of his premature death of course, and he really wasn't nearly as dominant in that time as he's made out to be. Is it possibly for such a dominating pitcher to only have 19 points of black ink? Robin Roberts had 62 points of black ink in his peak, and actually pitched a little bit after his peak (unlike Joss), and yet we have lots of people rating Joss ahead of him in the pitcher poll.

He really has no business in the HOF, and Rube Waddell may not deserve it either, although he is very close and with all the fame he has may be a worhty selection.


Joss was not only the most feared of his time, moreso then Ed Walsh and his new trick pitch but was so beloved the very 1st 'all star' game was played in his honor

If that doesn't convince you that they thought highly of him then here is a number for you


42

(see if anyone gets that reference)

[538280]

Joss was not only the most feared of his time, moreso then Ed Walsh and his new trick pitch but was so beloved the very 1st 'all star' game was played in his honor


Joss may very well have been the most feared pitcher of his time, but that really doesn't mean anything to me. He didn't last nearly as long, and in reality he wasn't as good as guys like Walsh, Plank, Chesbro, Brown, Willis, and more. There's a difference between perception and reality, and if we know the reality I really don't care about the perception.

[538280]

wow - the history of the game and the value of individuals boiled down to a few numbers - my least favorite aspect of bbf

Why is it some people have such a resentment to numbers? Maybe what Jim is saying is very reasonable, logical, and even right, but the fact he used numbers just makes it all irrelevent to you. You have to realize that value to a baseball team can be quantified. Of course, you probably HOPE than it can't.

[Imapotato]

Why is it some people have such a resentment to numbers? Maybe what Jim is saying is very reasonable, logical, and even right, but the fact he used numbers just makes it all irrelevent to you. You have to realize that value to a baseball team can be quantified. Of course, you probably HOPE than it can't.


or maybe its the fact that I have seen the same amount of 'formulas' contradict another set of 'formulas'

Fact is if you go looking, someone out there will have something that contradicts Jim's numbers

and the FACT remains, that if any deadballers were still alive and you gave them the list of P's you mentioned

They have and would say that Joss was the best

Plank, McGinnity, Brown, Willis and Chesboro had better squads, the latter 2 dominant Pirate clubs...and that means alot in the deadball era..whether you pitch hard because you might have a 1-0 score or your team scores 5 in the 1st and you can breeze through the game

I mean couldn't you use just logic and see Joss have a 1.16 ERA with 2x as many runs as earned runs...and he went 24-11 and say "how the heck did that happen??"

ERA was the measuring tool of an era that runs were at a premium

[csh19792001]

i think waddell is actually very well respected - best strikeout per game ratio prior to wwii - to me i always thought addie joss was the most overlooked pitcher of the 20th century

Did anyone else read that SABR Research Journal article awhile back about Dazzy Vance being the greatest strikeout pitcher of all time?

I'd say that everywhere else but here, Vance is probably the most overlooked (and possibly underrated) pitcher in history.

[538280]

Did anyone else read that SABR Research Journal article awhile back about Dazzy Vance being the greatest strikeout pitcher of all time?

I'd say that everywhere else but here, Vance is probably the most overlooked (and possibly underrated) pitcher in history.

I agree Vance is extremely underrated. He also got worse run support than any HOF pitcher. I would say he is the most underrated pitcher of all time, but that is before I've seen how Robin Roberts is doing in the pitcher poll. We're on poll #20 and many people still don't have him on their ballot! Bill still has him like 15 spots away!

Fergie Jenkins is really underrated too IMO.

[STLCards2]

Did anyone else read that SABR Research Journal article awhile back about Dazzy Vance being the greatest strikeout pitcher of all time?

I'd say that everywhere else but here, Vance is probably the most overlooked (and possibly underrated) pitcher in history.

Vance had 3 great, great years, but was nothing spectacular beyond that. Short career, less than 3000 IP, fewer than 200 wins, only 4 seasons with over 120 ERA+. I agree that Vance is underrated by the general public, but would contest that he is maybe a little overrated around here...even taking in account for lack of run support. I like Vance, so it is nothing personal. I guess those who love 3 year peaks and/or k rates would have him ranked in the top 20 all-time, but I tend to look at top 10-12 years when rating a pitcher.

[STLCards2]

Double post. Sorry!

As far as most underrated pitcher, I would go with Nichols. He is as almost unknown to the general public as Vance, but had a far superior career.

[jalbright]

wow, and I thought you and I wouldn't see eye to eye on alot of issues...at least we agree on this one.

I despise that a number is the tell all can't argue metric

"figures don't lie but liars figure"

It would be easy to interpret the above as saying something derogatory about me. I choose to believe it is, instead, horribly careless and insensitive writing on your part. Regardless of what you think of the numbers I quoted, I have not attempted to distort anything, much less prevaricate. Please be more careful about the language used in your postings in the future.

Jim Albright

[torez77]

Well, I'm glad we don't have to debate that at least Walter Johnson, Mathewson and Cy Young are all superior to Joss. Joss finishes 11th among pitchers in the decade 1900-09 behind those three, McGinnity, Waddell, Vic Willis, Plank, Three Finger Brown, Chesbro, Doc White and Jack Powell. I can see putting Joss ahead of White and Powell on peak performance. I look at six categories for guys in this era: Black Ink, Gray ink, HOF standards, career win shares, win share total in his best three seasons, and best win share total in five consecutive seasons. We'll go through the comparison to Chesbro in detail below in a moment. Of the HOFers (thus leaving out White and Powell), Joss can only edge Plank in gray ink, tie Waddell in HOF standards, and get Willis in HOF standards and best five consecutive, at least in that decade. He gets swamped on career wins shares by every one of them and often is significantly behind these guys in at least most of these categories. Even if we cut it down to 8 seasons in the decade like Joss (who only managed 7 more win shares from 1910 on), these guys are still beating him.

The real coup de grace for Joss's case in my mind, though, is the comparison to Jack Chesbro:

......................................Chesbro..... .............Joss
black ink..................................27........... ...........19
gray ink.................................130........... ..........143
HOF standards..........................40............. .........47
career win shares.....................209.................... 191
win shares in 00-09..................203.....................184
win shares in best 8 yrs.............195.....................184
best 3 yrs of win shares.............103.......................88
best 5 consecutive win shares.....143.....................131

I threw in the decade and best 8 seasons figures to try and give Joss a break, but it did no good. There's 130 years of baseball, and we've got 70 major league pitchers or so in the Hall. That works out to about a decade on average if we leave out the last decade. If you want to push it to 7 or 8 by taking fewer 19th century guys and eliminating duplicates, OK--but we already have 8 from the decade before getting to Joss versus Chesbro. The selection of Chesbro has drawn a lot of flak, but if we're only going to take Chesbro or Joss, I take Chesbro hands down.

I might add that only three of the ten most similar pitchers to Joss are in the HOF, and two of them are Candy Cummings (for his supposed invention of the curve) and Monte Ward (who had about two other HOF caliber careers in baseball, one as a shortstop and another as a executive type).

Jim Albright

In Bill James Historical Abstract, I see Joss averaging more Win Shares (31.51) for his career than McGinnity (29.52), Waddell (30.59) , and Plank (30.08), and I don't see Willis, Chesbro, White or Powell listed among the top pitchers in WS. Average win shares matters more than career win shares, especially versus most of the pitchers you listed, since their careers were equally or close to equally as short as Joss'. Forgive me, but I don't understand the logic of comparing the WS total of their best 3 seasons and their best WS total in 5 straight seasons, when Joss averages more WS for his total career. :confused: BTW, from what source are you getting this information?

[torez77]

Did anyone else read that SABR Research Journal article awhile back about Dazzy Vance being the greatest strikeout pitcher of all time?

I'd say that everywhere else but here, Vance is probably the most overlooked (and possibly underrated) pitcher in history.

I also agree that Vance is underrated. He was like Waddell in that he was a strikeout artist ahead of his time.

[Bill Burgess]

Joss may very well have been the most feared pitcher of his time, but that really doesn't mean anything to me. He didn't last nearly as long,

"nearly as long". Indeed. And yet, you continue to champion those whose great years were not that long. Allen, Thomas, Morgan.

There are a lot of players I like a lot, but cannot over-rank them due to too brief a period of greatness. Koufax, Dean, Marty Bergen, Lange, Waddell, Vance.

I may have an exception occasionally, like Sisler, but for the most part, I don't overdo it with my short career guys. You ranking Big Hurt over Gehrig is not going over well in that thread. Only 2 members have jumped off the cliff with you.

Bill

[torez77]

Joss may very well have been the most feared pitcher of his time, but that really doesn't mean anything to me. He didn't last nearly as long, and in reality he wasn't as good as guys like Walsh, Plank, Chesbro, Brown, Willis, and more. There's a difference between perception and reality, and if we know the reality I really don't care about the perception.

So the opinions of the players that actually had to face the guy mean nothing, huh? The REALITY is that Joss is in the HOF, and that everyone who saw him pitch thought he should be. At his best, Joss was as good or better than the best pitchers of his time. If his career had lasted longer, we wouldn't be mentioning him with the most underrated pitchers.

I can buy Joss not being as good as Walsh, Brown and maybe Plank (Plank had a long career, but NEVER had a great peak), but Chesbro and Willis is going way too far.

Since this was originally a Waddell thread, perhaps Joss should get his own thread, as well as Vance and others who people feel are underrated.

[csh19792001]

I agree Vance is extremely underrated. He also got worse run support than any HOF pitcher. I would say he is the most underrated pitcher of all time, but that is before I've seen how Robin Roberts is doing in the pitcher poll. We're on poll #20 and many people still don't have him on their ballot! Bill still has him like 15 spots away!

Fergie Jenkins is really underrated too IMO.

I'm also a huge Roberts fan, and I think even I've been underrating him myself for a long, long time. I probably don't give Fergie enough credit either, now that I realize it (he's similar in some ways to Roberts). Fergie is pretty much in the class with Marichal and other greats of the 60's and 70's.

[jalbright]

In Bill James Historical Abstract, I see Joss averaging more Win Shares (31.51) for his career than McGinnity (29.52), Waddell (30.59) , and Plank (30.08), and I don't see Willis, Chesbro, White or Powell listed among the top pitchers in WS. Average win shares matters more than career win shares, especially versus most of the pitchers you listed, since their careers were equally or close to equally as short as Joss'. Forgive me, but I don't understand the logic of comparing the WS total of their best 3 seasons and their best WS total in 5 straight seasons, when Joss averages more WS for his total career. :confused: BTW, from what source are you getting this information?

There are two simple reason for those averages: one is Joss had virtually no decline phase, the other guys did. The other is that the "average" season is based on 43 starts, which few of these guys achieved. Joss actually averaged 31 starts in his first 8 seasons. Even in his best seasons, Joss was not exceptionally durable, with only two seasons of over 300 IP. Plank had five, McGinnity nine, Willis eight and Chesbro four.

One of my sources is the very same Bill James Historical Abstract you are quoting. The other is the win shares book, which lists the top players by win shares in each decade The three best and five consecutive are conventional methods of evaluating peak--and since the quality of Joss' peak performance is absolutely critical to his claim, those measures are quite important. If Joss were among, say the top three in peak performance in his day, then I might buy his argument--but he's not there.

Jim Albright

[leecemark]

--Torrez, to keep the record straight the men who saw Joss pitch did NOT elect him to the HoF. Joss was elected in 1978 and I would be willing to make a sizeable wager that nobody voting had ever seen Joss work - and very few of them had even heard stories of him from men who had seen him pitch. He was elected based on some dusty old numbers, by men who didn't place them into their proper context.
--Addie was a very good pitcher, but he was more Mike Mussina than Roger Clemens and with a short career than Moose. I'd take recent second tier stars such as Mussia or Kevin Brown, neither of whom are exactly odds on favorites for Cooperstown, over Addie Joss.

[torez77]

There are two simple reason for those averages: one is Joss had virtually no decline phase, the other guys did. The other is that the "average" season is based on 43 starts, which few of these guys achieved. Joss actually averaged 31 starts in his first 8 seasons. Even in his best seasons, Joss was not exceptionally durable, with only two seasons of over 300 IP. Plank had five, McGinnity nine, Willis eight and Chesbro four.


Joss didn't start nearly as many games as alot of pitchers in that era, but when he did start, he usually finished, at a better percentage than every other notable pitcher of the era that I can see. For his career, he completed 234 of his 260 starts.

I don't mean to sound like I'm drooling over Joss, but when I hear he's not a worthy HOFer, I just completely disagree.

[torez77]

--Torrez, to keep the record straight the men who saw Joss pitch did NOT elect him to the HoF. Joss was elected in 1978 and I would be willing to make a sizeable wager that nobody voting had ever seen Joss work - and very few of them had even heard stories of him from men who had seen him pitch. He was elected based on some dusty old numbers, by men who didn't place them into their proper context.


I believe if the HOF had existed in Joss' time, he would've gotten the majority of the votes. Plus, the 5-year waiting rule would've been waived and he would've gotten in immediately after his death - the same thing that happened with Clemente.

[Imapotato]

It would be easy to interpret the above as saying something derogatory about me. I choose to believe it is, instead, horribly careless and insensitive writing on your part. Regardless of what you think of the numbers I quoted, I have not attempted to distort anything, much less prevaricate. Please be more careful about the language used in your postings in the future.

Jim Albright


It's a very old quote and not implied to you in paticular

But the meaning is the same...to prove something one can find numbers to fit the purpose

[538280]

In Bill James Historical Abstract, I see Joss averaging more Win Shares (31.51) for his career than McGinnity (29.52), Waddell (30.59) , and Plank (30.08), and I don't see Willis, Chesbro, White or Powell listed among the top pitchers in WS. Average win shares matters more than career win shares, especially versus most of the pitchers you listed, since their careers were equally or close to equally as short as Joss'. Forgive me, but I don't understand the logic of comparing the WS total of their best 3 seasons and their best WS total in 5 straight seasons, when Joss averages more WS for his total career. :confused: BTW, from what source are you getting this information?

Joss averages slightly more WS per start than those guys, in a career that was substantially shorter and had no decline. Mark Fidrych rates at like 30 or something in that category, about the same as Joss. Is he headed for the Hall too?

The other pitcher's careers were not "equally or close to as short as Joss". Waddell and Chesbro pitched about 600 more innings, McGinnity pitched about 1200 more, Willis pitched 1600 more. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Joss probably pitched less innings than any pitcher in the HOF.

Why would WS per start mean more than career Win Shares? WS per start will usually help players with shorter careers. We don't want that.

The logic in comparing their best 3 years and 5 best consecutive years is that it shows us how good a player was at his peak. Joss doesn't stack up well there either.

[leecemark]

--Dizzy Dean takes the fewest IP award amoung HoF SP. He didn't even get 2,000 in his career. From a pure value standpoint Dizzy is even less deserving than Joss. Considering it is the Hall of FAME, however, I can't really begrudge Dean.
--That is something we tend to forget here. It isn't the Hall of Value or even Greatness, but the Hall of Fame. A guy like Dean or more recently Catfish Hunter were more famous and celebrated than some pitchers who were, by the numbers, clearly better. That doesn't apply to Joss though. By the time he was elected only die hard historians even recognized his name. It was strictly numbers (and his early death) that got him in and a proper evaluation of those numbers shows that to be a questionable decision.

[Bill Burgess]

It isn't the Hall of Value or even Greatness, but the Hall of Fame.
While you are, of course, technically quite right, it is called the Hall of Fame, most of the baseball cognoscenti, like us, strongly believe it SHOULD be reserved for the greatest players, not the merely most famous.

However, we, the baseball cognoscenti, may never get our way. Seldom have, really.

Bill

[leecemark]

--Alas, any chance of Coopertown being reserved for only th etrue elite is long since lost. At this point, it is only unfair to modern player to exclude them when they produce a career similar to mid-tier HoFer. Holding more recent players to a higher standard than many of the old timers already in just demeans the hall. Which, is not to say being better than the worst guys should get you in, but you don't have to be Walter Johsnon or Lefty Grove either.

[Bill Burgess]

--Alas, any chance of Cooperstown being reserved for only the true elite is long since lost. At this point, it is only unfair to modern players to exclude them when they produce a career similar to mid-tier HoFers. Holding more recent players to a higher standard than many of the old timers already in, just demeans the Hall. Which, is not to say being better than the worst guys should get you in, but you don't have to be Walter Johnson or Lefty Grove either.
Must sadly agree with you here, Mark. Would you think that, if politics could ever be gotten around, (what a big IF?) Hall tiers would restore some of the past interest/credibility to the Hall?

Also, what do you think of my idea of creation of a permanent exhibit at the Hall, where defensive excellence could be acknowledged, without otherwise inclusion in the Hall proper?

Bill Burgess

[538280]

Must sadly agree with you here, Mark. Would you think that, if politics could ever be gotten around, (what a big IF?) Hall tiers would restore some of the past interest/credibility to the Hall?

I do.

Bill Burgess

Bill, there's actually more interest in the Hall today than there probably ever has been. Many more visitors, much more money made.

I think you have to remember that while serious historians have little credibility for the Hall because of the politics and bad selections, the vast majority of fans (and people who go to the Hall) really have no idea about any of that.

[Bill Burgess]

Bill, there's actually more interest in the Hall today than there probably ever has been. Many more visitors, much more money made.

I think you have to remember that while serious historians have little credibility for the Hall because of the politics and bad selections, the vast majority of fans (and people who go to the Hall) really have no idea about any of that.
True. More's the pity. How sad. Would you support the tiers concept, or my Defensive Exhibit Concept? Either have any merit for you, Chris?

Bill

[torez77]

--Alas, any chance of Coopertown being reserved for only th etrue elite is long since lost. At this point, it is only unfair to modern player to exclude them when they produce a career similar to mid-tier HoFer. Holding more recent players to a higher standard than many of the old timers already in just demeans the hall. Which, is not to say being better than the worst guys should get you in, but you don't have to be Walter Johsnon or Lefty Grove either.

I am actually in total agreement that the HOF should be reserved for the greatest of the great. Unfortunately, there have been many questionable additions, which is why I argue in favor of other questionable additions (like Joss perhaps), because it's only fair to include them if certain others have been included.

I haven't participated in the BBF HOF elections, but maybe I'll give them a look-see. Hopefully, they are less controversial. :rolleyes:

[yanks0714]

--Alas, any chance of Coopertown being reserved for only th etrue elite is long since lost. At this point, it is only unfair to modern player to exclude them when they produce a career similar to mid-tier HoFer. Holding more recent players to a higher standard than many of the old timers already in just demeans the hall. Which, is not to say being better than the worst guys should get you in, but you don't have to be Walter Johsnon or Lefty Grove either.

I agree on the comments on this thread. The HOF has players who don't belong. We're all aware of the Frisch Vets Comm voting in the Fordham Flash's buddies, but starting with the very first elections, who was the first player elected that should not be in? What is the 'starting point' of when it made it's first mistake? This could be worthy of its own thread.

My vote goes to Candy Cummings by the Vets Comm in 1939.
My vote goes to Herb Pennock by the Baseball Writers in 1948.

[leecemark]

--I'm not neccessarily saying they don't belong, as they probably do in the Hall that has come to be, but the writer demonstrated as early as 1939 that they weren't going to limit Cooperstown to only the best of the best when they elected Sisler and Keeler.

[torez77]

I do, however, agree with Mark when he says it is the Hall of FAME, and hence very famous and influential players, managers, executives, etc. should get in under that criteria. Only makes sense. Players like Dean and Hunter would fit that bill. Joss would not.

But if players like Ross Youngs, Rabbit Maranville (maybe he got in cuz of his name??), Jesse Haines, Waite Hoyt and Herb Pennock are gonna get in, Joss undoubtedly deserves to be also.

[leecemark]

--Maranville was actually very famous and considered a superstar when active (defense was much more appreciated in those days). I agree Joss belongs in your latter group though - and none of them belong in Cooperstown.

[HitchedtoaSpark]

wow - the history of the game and the value of individuals boiled down to a few numbers - my least favorite aspect of bbf
Yep. A clue as to why I seldom visit or post here anymore.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Herb Pennock are gonna get in, Joss undoubtedly deserves to be also.

Certainly Pennock is not an upper tier HOFer. His career ERA+ of 106 isn't too impressive, and he didn't rack up much ink. He hung around a little too long, and was a non-strikeout pitcher who played in the heart of the 20's. He started out as mostly a reliever, and continued to appear in relief later in his career (197 relief appearances, 32 career saves). McCarthy once said, "" I am going to pitch Pennock in spots this season -- the tough ones."

I think he's a classic example of numbers not showing the true greatness of a player (In '25 he went 16-17, but had an ERA+ of 144). Pennock was a smooth lefty who held runners as well as anyone, he was a superb fielder, and he was money when it mattered most (In the 1927 World Series, he had a perfect game going with one out in the eighth inning, and ended up his post season career at 5-0 with an ERA below 2)

Completed 247 of 420 games started, and was regarded by many as one of top few lefties in the league. Once again, I agree he is not a top tier HOFer, but certainly there have been worse inductees throughout history.

A few things about Herb...

In 1915, he nearly became the first pitcher in history to throw a no hitter on opening day. Up 2-0, he had two outs in the ninth inning, when he gave up a single. Almost doesn't count though. Feller became the first to do it in 1940.

In '28 he won a 14 inning game against the White Sox, and came out of it with a sore arm. He was pretty much done for the rest of the season, but at one point resorted to letting bees sting his arm cause he thought it would help it.

In game three of the '27 Series, he retired 22 straight Pirate hitters in a complete game 3 hitter victory. This with a hurt leg from being drilled with a ball during BP in Pittsburgh.

Huggins called Pennock the greatest lefthander in history, and Babe would always mention Pennock on his all star teams, but eventually he conceded that Lefty Grove was the best lefty he had ever seen. He always maintained though, that Pennock was the smartest. He would say that Pennock was a lefty version of Mathewson. Despite Pennock having a completely opposite personality, Babe and him got along very well. In fact, after Huston convinced Babe to end his infamous barnstorming trip, Babe went off hunting with Pennock before going to see Landis.

After Babe's $70,000 salary in '27, Pennock was next on the list with $17,500.

-In '23,'24,'26,'27,'28, Pennock was 99-40 with a 130 ERA+ and 101 CG in 144 GS
In his last 5 years, Koufax was 111-34 with an outlandish ERA+ and 100 CG in 176 GS

[Bill Burgess]

Yep. A clue as to why I seldom visit or post here anymore.
Hold on. Some members still try to hold the line and post more traditionally about people, the old-fashioned way. Please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater! We're still here, still fighting hard.

Bill Burgess

[csh19792001]

Yep. A clue as to why I seldom visit or post here anymore.

Yep. And the reason why myself and many others with whom I've spoken on PM are getting disgusted with this site.

The stat mongers know who they are.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The stat mongers know who they are.

You mean the ones that use CS % as measure of a players speed/baserunning ability? :rolleyes:

[Bill Burgess]

Yep. And the reason why myself and many others with whom I've spoken on PM are getting disgusted with this site.

The stat mongers know who they are.

There is room enough for all of us here. We do have an ignore list, if it must come to that.

Bill

[torez77]

It bugs me a little when threads go completely off topic and veer off in many directions. I've contributed to that, so I plead guilty.

Bill, or anybody else - would you like to post more articles that laud Rube? I already posted Walter Johnson's take on him.

[leecemark]

--You can start a thread, but they have a life of their own. Many of the best discussions are side tracks from the original topic.

[Brian McKenna]

It bugs me a little when threads go completely off topic and veer off in many directions..

i know what you are saying but that is what makes bbf so interesting - great info is provided in unlikely places - you can't have an infinite # of topics so it is good when are minds are sparked to explore different areas

[Bill Burgess]

It bugs me a little when threads go completely off topic and veer off in many directions. I've contributed to that, so I plead guilty.

Bill, or anybody else - would you like to post more articles that laud Rube? I already posted Walter Johnson's take on him.
This has only happened to me about a million times. I used to whine about it, but what can anyone do? People throw in what they feel they need to, and it goes from there. But Mark is quite right. Sometimes, great stuff comes about spontaneously.

Re: Rube.

Have you seen my Historical Articles? Some nice stuff in there about Rube. Also, if anyone does a search about their favorite stuff, you would be surprised how much there is on old threads. Rube no doubt has some old threads devoted solely to him. I don't have any old articles on him, off hand, except what I posted in Historical Articles. Check it out. You might like some of it.

Bill

[abacab]

42

(see if anyone gets that reference)

I get it, it's a reference to the most overrated book ever :laugh

In all seriousness, "stat guys vs non-stat guys" thing is getting really ridiculous. If you don't like Win Shares and whatnot, that's perfectly understandable, but to say such discussions are ruining the site is a little strong, I think.

If you want an objective debate, you need to bring in some sort of statistical evidence, otherwise all you have is "such-and-such said he was a really tough out, therefore he must have been great." Do these numbers tell the whole story? The answer is clearly no, but they're a good starting point. From there, you can analyze whether a player was better or worse than the unbiased numbers. A perfect example is the information that Sultan provided about Pennock. I wasn't aware that Pennock was considered one of the clutch pitchers of his time.

This brings up another criticism of the stat-based analysis of really way-back pitchers like Pennock, Bender, Joss, and Waddell. They've taken a big hit in new-school stats because they had unimpressive IP totals in the context of their time. The question is, did they have low IP totals because they had durability issues, or because their manager was saving them for the better teams? The statisticians are working to take this into account, and we may find out that these "mistakes" really were great pitchers.

[wamby]

Why is it some people have such a resentment to numbers? Maybe what Jim is saying is very reasonable, logical, and even right, but the fact he used numbers just makes it all irrelevent to you. You have to realize that value to a baseball team can be quantified. Of course, you probably HOPE than it can't.

I think it is the type of nubers that he used. What exactly is a win-share? How is it calculated? What does it say about a player? It sounds like smoke and mirrors to me.

[Imapotato]

I get it, it's a reference to the most overrated book ever :laugh

In all seriousness, "stat guys vs non-stat guys" thing is getting really ridiculous. If you don't like Win Shares and whatnot, that's perfectly understandable, but to say such discussions are ruining the site is a little strong, I think.

If you want an objective debate, you need to bring in some sort of statistical evidence, otherwise all you have is "such-and-such said he was a really tough out, therefore he must have been great." Do these numbers tell the whole story? The answer is clearly no, but they're a good starting point. From there, you can analyze whether a player was better or worse than the unbiased numbers. A perfect example is the information that Sultan provided about Pennock. I wasn't aware that Pennock was considered one of the clutch pitchers of his time.

This brings up another criticism of the stat-based analysis of really way-back pitchers like Pennock, Bender, Joss, and Waddell. They've taken a big hit in new-school stats because they had unimpressive IP totals in the context of their time. The question is, did they have low IP totals because they had durability issues, or because their manager was saving them for the better teams? The statisticians are working to take this into account, and we may find out that these "mistakes" really were great pitchers.


I made a point and case for Joss using stats

His unearned runs were 2x as much as his earned runs, runs were premium back then and defense was VERY important, more important then sabermetrics consider today (and that is correct, defense is not important at the start of the HR fiesta)

Joss had a 1.16 ERA, and went ONLY 24-11...that is amazing and shows that the Naps/Indians had a horrible defense

Joss was also not a K artist, he relied on his wicked curve to be put into the ground for outs...his defense obviously failed him

[Metal Ed]

I don't know about underrated.... underachieving would be a better word. This is a guy who Walter frickin' Johnson thought was the most gifted pitching talent he had ever seen.

[wamby]

I don't know about underrated.... underachieving would be a better word. This is a guy who Walter frickin' Johnson thought was the most gifted pitching talent he had ever seen.

I think that, if anything, Waddell was an overachiever. I don't agree with Bill Burgess that Waddell was autistic, but I believe that he was mildly retarded. Given what I see is his mental state, I think he defeinetly overachieved especially if you consider the era he lived and pitched in.

[Metal Ed]

I think that, if anything, Waddeel was an overachiever. I don't agree with Bill Burgess that Waddell was autistic, but I believe that he was mildly retarded. Given what I see is his mental state, I think he defeinetly overachieved especially if you consider the era he lived and pitched in.


Good point.

[538280]

I think it is the type of nubers that he used. What exactly is a win-share? How is it calculated? What does it say about a player? It sounds like smoke and mirrors to me.

It is my firm opinion that the people who hate sabermetrics (and metrics like Win Shares) are also the people who A)Naturally hate math and numbers, and B)Know the least about it. Here's a good link as to how Win Shares are calculated:

http://www.baseballgraphs.com/main/index.php/site/details/#sharecalc

If you want a better explantion than that, you're going to have to buy the Win Shares book. I've read through the explantion in the book several times, I honestly think it's a good system and it means something. I've never met anyone who actually knows what goes in to Win Shares and thinks they are meaningless. Most people who trash on them (including you in this post) really have no idea what they are or what they really mean. That really frustrates me.

Not to say WS are an argument ender, but they are something that should be considered.

[Bill Burgess]

I think that, if anything, Waddell was an overachiever. I don't agree with Bill Burgess that Waddell was autistic, but I believe that he was mildly retarded. Given what I see is his mental state, I think he definitely overachieved especially if you consider the era he lived and pitched in.
Whether or not Rube Waddell was high-functioning autistic, mildly retarded or had Asperger's Syndrome's, the point is he was to be admired for his ability to pitch so well at all.

[csh19792001]

Whether or not Rube Waddell was high-functioning autistic, mildly retarded or had Asperger's Syndrome's, the point is he was to be admired for his ability to pitch so well at all.

Most individuals with autism are mildly retarded. If either/both are true, then all the zany stories about him jumping into rivers to "save" floating objects (and variations on that theme) aren't so funny anymore, I don't think. Sad more than anything else.

On the other hand, most people with Aspberger's are high functioning but highly idiosyncratic in a litany of ways. From what I've read about him, it wouldn't surprise me if this would have been Rube's clinical diagnosis.

[wamby]

Whether or not Rube Waddell was high-functioning autistic, mildly retarded or had Asperger's Syndrome's, the point is he was to be admired for his ability to pitch so well at all.

I agree. We had a good discussion on this subject last year.

[wamby]

It is my firm opinion that the people who hate sabermetrics (and metrics like Win Shares) are also the people who A)Naturally hate math and numbers, and B)Know the least about it. Here's a good link as to how Win Shares are calculated:

http://www.baseballgraphs.com/main/index.php/site/details/#sharecalc

If you want a better explantion than that, you're going to have to buy the Win Shares book. I've read through the explantion in the book several times, I honestly think it's a good system and it means something. I've never met anyone who actually knows what goes in to Win Shares and thinks they are meaningless. Most people who trash on them (including you in this post) really have no idea what they are or what they really mean. That really frustrates me.

Not to say WS are an argument ender, but they are something that should be considered.

I don't hate math and am reasonably good with it. I just don't buy into the arguement that a players ability can be broken down into a single number like a win share.

I'm also curious how people who use metrics like win shares can rate Negro Leaguers so high when their statistical records are fragmentary and somewhat deceiveing. I see people here throw out complicated metric and then say Oscar Charleston is in the top five of alltime. I don't understand that.

[wamby]

Most individuals with autism are mildly retarded. If either/both are true, then all the zany stories about him jumping into rivers to "save" floating objects (and variations on that theme) aren't so funny anymore, I don't think. Sad more than anything else.

On the other hand, most people with Aspberger's are high functioning but highly idiosyncratic in a litany of ways. From what I've read about him, it wouldn't surprise me if this would have been Rube's clinical diagnosis.

There was a thread about this subject last year in which these different conditions were discussed and how they may have applied to Rube Waddell.

[torez77]

There was a thread about this subject last year in which these different conditions were discussed and how they may have applied to Rube Waddell.

Yeah, I just found that thread and skimmed through it. Fact is, we're not sure what disability Rube had, but we know that he was different. It wouldn't surprise me if he was autistic. I've heard stories about autistics being able to zone in and focus on what they're doing better than an average person. If you've seen the movie Rain Man, I've heard that is a close-to-accurate portrayal of the traits of an autistic-savant. Was Rube an autistic-savant? Not sure.

Only a week ago, there was a real-life story about an autistic teenager who was given a chance to play on his high-school basketball team. He missed his first 2 shots, but once he got into a groove, he sank six three-pointers in a row, scoring 20 points in 3 minutes! Here's the article if anyone's interested:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/23/earlyshow/main1339324.shtml

How does this relate to Rube? Not sure. But it wouldn't surprise me if he was autistic-savant or had Aspberger's, as they both are high-functioning, and if Rube put his mind into pitching, it's no surprise that he did well.

[538280]

I don't hate math and am reasonably good with it. I just don't buy into the argument that a players ability can be broken down into a single number like a win share.

You have to understand that Win Shares aren't designed to be an argument ender. They're not designed to be a definitive statement that's ALWAYS true. They're supposed to help people rate players, not completely have them make up their mind because "Win Shares says it's right".

I'm also curious how people who use metrics like win shares can rate Negro Leaguers so high when their statistical records are fragmentary and somewhat deceiving. I see people here throw out complicated metric and then say Oscar Charleston is in the top five of alltime. I don't understand that.

It's unfair to leave the Negro Leaguers out, so you have to make your best approximation. This is like the argument some guys like Parker and Gossage have made with this Negro League ballot. They say that they're being kept out of the HOF because their numbers supposedly aren't good enough, and now they're electing a boatload of guys without numbers. But they have to realize it's not the players' fault that they don't have numbers.

[baseballPAP]

It's a very old quote and not implied to you in paticular

But the meaning is the same...to prove something one can find numbers to fit the purpose
But it is OK to disprove something by finding an old story that says it isn't true, right? That is what you're saying. For every story about how so-and-so was great, there is another one somewhere that tells about a no-hit shortstop just owned him. Now if you'd like to take a step back and look at the numbers AND the anecdotes, then just maybe you'll see the whole picture.

[abacab]

I made a point and case for Joss using stats

His unearned runs were 2x as much as his earned runs, runs were premium back then and defense was VERY important, more important then sabermetrics consider today (and that is correct, defense is not important at the start of the HR fiesta)

Joss had a 1.16 ERA, and went ONLY 24-11...that is amazing and shows that the Naps/Indians had a horrible defense

Joss was also not a K artist, he relied on his wicked curve to be put into the ground for outs...his defense obviously failed him

Good info, but here's the question: did Joss give up more unearned runs than the average deadball pitcher? If all deadball pitchers gave up twice as many unearned runs as earned, then this doesn't help Joss. This is also an indication that ERA+ isn't as meaningful for deadball and 19th century pitchers as it is for modern pitchers.

I don't think Win Shares adjusts for team defense, which makes it less reliable for deadball players. WS generally isn't good for comparing pitchers of any era since it's based on innings pitched.

However, WARP does incorporate team defense into a pitcher's rating. On the BP site, there is a stat called DERA which adjusts a pitcher's ERA for defense. They adjust Joss's ERA upward - meaning that they think he had a really good defense. Since they don't post their formulas, we can't see how they came up with that.

[wamby]

You have to understand that Win Shares aren't designed to be an argument ender. They're not designed to be a definitive statement that's ALWAYS true. They're supposed to help people rate players, not completely have them make up their mind because "Win Shares says it's right".



It's unfair to leave the Negro Leaguers out, so you have to make your best approximation. This is like the argument some guys like Parker and Gossage have made with this Negro League ballot. They say that they're being kept out of the HOF because their numbers supposedly aren't good enough, and now they're electing a boatload of guys without numbers. But they have to realize it's not the players' fault that they don't have numbers.

I realize that it is not the fault of Negro Leaguers that few numbers exist from their playing days. But the cold, hard truth is that those guys don't have the numbers in which to evalute their careers. Unfair or not, that is how I see it. I don't understand how numbers guys can evaluate these players when the numbers aren't there. I think Parker and Gossage have a legitimite beef here.

[jalbright]

I don't think Win Shares adjusts for team defense, which makes it less reliable for deadball players. WS generally isn't good for comparing pitchers of any era since it's based on innings pitched.
.
Win Shares does try to divide the credit for runs prevented between the defense and the pitchers. How well it accomplishes that is open to debate, but the method does try to account for how good the defense is.

Jim Albright

[abacab]

Win Shares does try to divide the credit for runs prevented between the defense and the pitchers. How well it accomplishes that is open to debate, but the method does try to account for how good the defense is.

Right, 52% of a team's WS is allocated to run prevention, but I was under the impression that the percentages allocated to pitching and fielding were more or less set. The percentage allocated to fielding should be much higher for deadball era and 19th century players compared with current players.

[jalbright]

Right, 52% of a team's WS is allocated to run prevention, but I was under the impression that the percentages allocated to pitching and fielding were more or less set. The percentage allocated to fielding should be much higher for deadball era and 19th century players compared with current players.

They all vary--the 52% is only for average teams--it can vary greatly for individual teams (ones that are offense rich and defense poor will have a lot less than 50% of its win shares on the run prevention side, for example), and the split between defense and pitchers is usually 70% pitchers, but according to the win shares book, ranges between 60 and 75% in all cases where doing so doesn't screw up everything else. I know that pitchers usually get 1/2 of the unearned runs in their evaluations, so that works against them in earlier times--beyond that, you'd have to talk to someone who knows the ins and outs of the system better than I to get a worthwhile answer on how the system addresses the issue you raise.

Jim Albright

[538280]

Right, 52% of a team's WS is allocated to run prevention, but I was under the impression that the percentages allocated to pitching and fielding were more or less set. The percentage allocated to fielding should be much higher for deadball era and 19th century players compared with current players.

The percentages allocated to pitching and fielding are not set, certainly not set at all. They are figured differently for each team, depending on these factors:

1.A team's defensive efficiency record (percentage of balls in play turned into outs)
2.A team's strikeout rate
3.A team's walk rate
4.A team's home runs allowed, park adjusted.
5.A team's fielding percentage
6.A team's double plays, compared to expected double plays.

All those factors combine to have a percentage of that 52% allocated to pitchers and fielders. It is done differently for each team. Obviously, if a team has a high DER, that will mean more points for the fielders. Higher strikeout rate, more points for the pitchers. Higher walk rate more points to the pitchers (even though it is a negative thing it does equal less responsibility on the fielders). Higher HRs allowed is more for pitchers, higher fielding percentage is more for fielders, and higher DPs is more for fielders.

So, yes, WS does differentiate between pitching and fielding when giving credit for runs not allowed.

[jalbright]

I realize that it is not the fault of Negro Leaguers that few numbers exist from their playing days. But the cold, hard truth is that those guys don't have the numbers in which to evalute their careers. Unfair or not, that is how I see it. I don't understand how numbers guys can evaluate these players when the numbers aren't there. I think Parker and Gossage have a legitimite beef here.

You're right that one cannot rely solely on Negro Leauge numbers to evaluate players. On the other hand, career numbers limited by the league the player is in are solid indicators. Single season numbers, with the short seasons, are not terribly valuable except for guys who consistently were among the league leaders. But there are plenty of points of intersection which can give us reasonable ways to mold that data to major league equivalents. That's only one part of the puzzle, though--this is a situation where a) you probably should err on the side of caution, and 2) you want to be very careful when the numbers you come up with don't match the subjective reputation of the player. But when the numbers and the subjective reputation match, they reinforce each other.

As an aside, if the numerical systems didn't generally gibe with subjective opinions, there would be great cause to doubt the value of those systems. However, most of the designers of such systems realize that truth and use subjective opinions as a means of checking the results they come up with. If the variations are because of things like valuing walks, which traditionally have been virtually ignored, that's OK. But otherwise, they should be relatively few in number and not indicative of a bias in one direction or another.

Jim Albright