Clayton Kershaw

[bravos4evr]

I don't like baseball reference so I don't use their stats. value is value, 72 WAR is 72 WAR and Murray and Kaat were worth the same yet only 1 is a HOF'er?

[the 'stache]

Clearly Murray was farther above the average Major League player than Kaat. And if it took Kaat 4 extra years to reach Murray's WAR, is he really as valuable? Nope.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Clearly Murray was farther above the average Major League player than Kaat. And if it took Kaat 4 extra years to reach Murray's WAR, is he really as valuable? Nope.

for their careers yes they were equally valuable. value is value


you also fail to mention Kaat's high rated defense which doesn't count towards his pitching WAR. (but Murray's counts toward his)

[the 'stache]

No, they weren't equally valuable. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

If one horse takes two minutes to run a mile, and a second horse takes 2:20 to run the mile, they've both run a mile, but the first horse was much faster than the second. The first horse wins races, and gets put out to stud. The second gets turned into glue.

Kaat needed an extra 4 years, or a career that was 20% longer than Murray's, to get the same value. Not the same. Not even close.

You can dismiss all the stats you want. But the same formulas apply equally to all players in the game's history. And one says, for his career, Kaat was 8% better than the average pitchers in his era. The other says that Murray was 29% better than the average hitters in his era.

Oh, and Eddie Murray was voted into the Hall of Fame in 2003, receiving 85.3% of the vote the first time he was eligible.

Jim Kaat was on the Hall ballot for fifteen years, and never cracked 30% of any vote. He was dropped from the ballot.

85% vote, got in on first try vs. 15 years on the ballot, and never sniffed induction.

But, yeah, they were equally valuable. Uh huh. That's what we call an untenable position.

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

for their careers yes they were equally valuable. value is value


you also fail to mention Kaat's high rated defense which doesn't count towards his pitching WAR. (but Murray's counts toward his)

[the 'stache]

And Kaat gets 6 + WAR from his hitting, which is far more than he'd ever get from his fielding as a pitcher, even as a Gold Glover (which, again, doesn't really mean anything, right? You can't say awards are meaningless one minute, and then turn around hailing the number of Gold Gloves a pitcher has as an indication of how much his WAR should be increased).

Why isn't dWar considered for pitchers? Because they don't get enough chances to justify its inclusion. A starting pitcher throws 30-35 games a year, on average, with some variance depending on the era they pitched in. Kaat played 25 years. He had a grand total of 1,062 defensive chances. That breaks down to about 41 a year, or slightly more than one chance per game. How much do you think WAR will increase by the one ball, on average, Kaat fielded a game?

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

No, they weren't equally valuable. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

If one horse takes two minutes to run a mile, and a second horse takes 2:20 to run the mile, they've both run a mile, but the first horse was much faster than the second. The first horse wins races, and gets put out to stud. The second gets turned into glue.

Kaat needed an extra 4 years, or a career that was 20% longer than Murray's, to get the same value. Not the same. Not even close.

You can dismiss all the stats you want. But the same formulas apply equally to all players in the game's history. And one says, for his career, Kaat was 8% better than the average pitchers in his era. The other says that Murray was 29% better than the average hitters in his era.

Oh, and Eddie Murray was voted into the Hall of Fame in 2003, receiving 85.3% of the vote the first time he was eligible.

Jim Kaat was on the Hall ballot for fifteen years, and never cracked 30% of any vote. He was dropped from the ballot.

85% vote, got in on first try vs. 15 years on the ballot, and never sniffed induction.

But, yeah, they were equally valuable. Uh huh. That's what we call an untenable position.

so I didn't say they were equal players on a year by year basis, but the RESULTS of their career say they provided equal value.

so what? the voters were mostly morons back then who still thought batting avg and RBI's had value (as well as pitcher wins). Voters are smarter now.

There are only 4 pitchers IN MLB HISTORY who aren't in the HOF, with more fWAR than Kaat, Tommy John, Mike Mussina, Kevin Brown and Curt Schilling, all 5 (including Kaat) are in the top 30 of starters all time per fWAR. (and 2 of them, Brown and Schilling, have had the PED thing associated with them)

BTW, 4 of Kaat's last 5 seasons he was a pen arm so he accumulated his WAR in 21 seasons of starting.


(oh and fWAR adds defensive production to batter WAR along with baserunning this is why it doesn't show up on pitcher WAR stats)

[KCRfan1]

So BA and RBI's don't have value?

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

So BA and RBI's don't have value?

not really. Not for what people have traditionally used them for (individual hitter production)

Let's look at the limitations of batting avg:

it doesn't tell us how good a player is at getting on base

it doesn't tell us the type of hits they got thus creating the illusion that a .300 hitter is more productive than a .275 hitter (and this may or may not be true but avg alone doesn't tell us this) OPS (which combines OBP and SLG) does a better job, wOBA and wRC+ are better than that.

I mean, would you rather have Ichiro and his career .314 avg or Jim Thome and his career .276 avg?


RBI's are so contingent on the OBP ability of player's in front of a player (and/or the quality of the team's offense) rather than the player himself. (as the player has no control of who is on base when he comes to the plate, nor does the presence of baserunners impact his ability to hit) there is a small variation in hit sequencing with RISP, but it's within the noise range.

Let us look at a couple of examples of why RBI's doesn't tell us much about player production: Ryan Howard in 2014 had 95 RBI's (18th in MLB) yet his slash line was .223/.310/.380 (terrible) his wRC+ was 93 (7% belw avg)and his WAR was -0.4

also in 2014 Kyle Seager had 96 RBI's had a slash line of .268/.334/.454 with a wRC+ of 127 (27% above avg) and a WAR of 5.5

two guys, same season nearly identical RBI's in the same amount of games yet their actual hitting production that year couldn't be more different.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

so I didn't say they were equal players on a year by year basis, but the RESULTS of their career say they provided equal value.

so what? the voters were mostly morons back then who still thought batting avg and RBI's had value (as well as pitcher wins). Voters are smarter now.

I think that's somewhat unfair to anyone who evaluated players years ago. I'm not sure what date would be appropriate, but the newer stats were used by very few people until fairly recently.

As an example, I went to the SABR convention in 2002, and one of the talks was about a system teams were using to track some detailed player data by video. Really neat system, each pitch was filmed and annotated with situational info that was entered into a searchable database. The teams traded tapes, and since messing with the data would spoil it for everyone apparently it worked really well. Being able to pick up tendencies and tells for both pitchers and batters was a big benefit.
And at the time, only six teams were using the system.

The only pro I can think of who might have been trying anything similar earlier was Earl Weaver, who had those 3x5 cards of his. (I'd love to get hold of a handful of those! ) Varitek did something similar to help prep, and was supposedly really happy to use the video system as well as his own.


And if that's the state of the art for baseball pros ca 2002 I can't imagine most writers were doing much at all.


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

Interesting debate about cumulative value vs peak value. I can see an argument for each side. I often hear people downplay a player as merely building up stats by hanging around a long time. I don't quite buy into that, since some part of me says "hey, the amount they get paid now, if a guy is merely average there's got to be some reason they don't just replace him with random prospects until one sticks. Which did happen regularly for a few years, taking some of my favorite players out of the game because they could supposedly be easily replaced with a younger player for less than the veteran minimum. Like Brian Daubach, not spectacular, but a solid slightly above average player. The big contract kicked in for 2002, went from 400K to 2.3 million. Then he was allowed to go into free agency and Chicago would only sign him to a minor league deal putting him back at 450-500K over the next couple years.
A fairly common career arc at the time, and a situation where the CBA didn't do much for the average player.



Steve B

[bravos4evr]

you are right, I might have been a little mean towards the older voters. BUT, a lot of those guys hand waved modern stats away in the early 200's tho....

Interesting debate about cumulative value vs peak value. I can see an argument for each side. I often hear people downplay a player as merely building up stats by hanging around a long time. I don't quite buy into that, since some part of me says "hey, the amount they get paid now, if a guy is merely average there's got to be some reason they don't just replace him with random prospects until one sticks. Which did happen regularly for a few years, taking some of my favorite players out of the game because they could supposedly be easily replaced with a younger player for less than the veteran minimum. Like Brian Daubach, not spectacular, but a solid slightly above average player. The big contract kicked in for 2002, went from 400K to 2.3 million. Then he was allowed to go into free agency and Chicago would only sign him to a minor league deal putting him back at 450-500K over the next couple years.

well.... I think the real measure when it comes to long careers, is how long they were still productive. Rose, for example, was not a very good player his last 5 seasons chasing the hit record. But, his total career value is still what it is.

I just think there is more than 1 way to get to the HOF, you can have a shorter career with better peak numbers, a long career with consistent above avg production or a combo of the two. I think Eddie Murray deserves it even tho his peak was not "hall worthy" because there is something to be said for being around a long time and being above avg. My Kaat, Tommy John argument is that they were both good pitchers who played a long time AND have a higher career WAR than several pitchers who are in. (and both are above 60 WAR which has often been touted as the dividing line for HOF consideration by sabr nerds)

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

so I didn't say they were equal players on a year by year basis, but the RESULTS of their career say they provided equal value.

Murray 129 OPS + career. 29% above league average for his career.
Kaat 108 ERA +. 8% above league average career.

29% >>>>> 8%. In fact, 29% is more than three times better than 8%. What part of that is unclear to you?? If Jim Kaat had pitched 29% above league average for his career, then you could say they provided equal value. That didn't happen.

Look at their career totals, and their 162 game averages:

Murray averaged 686 plate appearances per 162 games played. He had 12,817 career ABs, or 18.68 seasons worth of baseball.
Kaat averaged 202 innings pitched per 162 games played. He had 4,530 1/3 IP, or 22.42 seasons worth of baseball.

What this boils down to is that Eddie Murray played about four fewer seasons of baseball than Jim Kaat (3.74 to be precise). So, if their career fWAR is comparable (72.0 for Murray, 70.9 for Kaat), Kaat played 3.75 more seasons to get nearly the same value that Murray did.

At 202 innings pitched per 162 games, here's another way of saying it. If Murray and Kaat started their careers on the same day, and then, several years later, Murray retired, Jim Kaat had to throw another 755 innings to reach his 70.9 fWAR. And he was still a win below Murray at that point.

And, again, as far as their career peaks are concerned, there is no comparison to be made. Murray's peak was at a Hall of Fame level. Kaat's was not.

There are 62 starting pitchers in the Hall. JAWS ranks Kaat the 102nd best starter in history. There are 40 starters not already in the Hall that are more deserving than Kaat. He was a workhorse starter that ate up a lot of innings for a long time. A nice pitcher, but not one worthy of enshrinement in Cooperstown.

I think Eddie Murray deserves it even tho his peak was not "hall worthy" because there is something to be said for being around a long time and being above avg.

His peak was not Hall worthy? Are you freaking kidding me?

Do you understand the concept of context? I've referred to it multiple times. You have to look at what other players in the same league were doing in any given season. He was top 5 in the American League MVP five years in a row between 1981 and 1985, and was 6th in the MVP in 1980. Six years in a row top 6 in the MVP vote, with a composite 152 OPS + (52% above league average) isn't a Hall worthy peak? LOL, ok.

Here's where he finished in the American League in OPS +

1980 8th
1981 3rd
1982 2nd
1983 2nd
1984 1st
1985 5th
1986 7th

Clearly not an elite peak.

Kaat's best full season ERA + was a 131 in 1966. 31% above league average. Murray's six year OPS + composite was 21% better than Kaat's best season.

Jim Kaat received Cy Young votes once.....once in his 24 year career. The Cy Young Award was first given out to a pitcher in both leagues in 1967. Kaat was a rookie in 1972. In a quarter century of baseball, Kaat received never received a single vote outside of the 1975 season. Not top five, or top ten. Not even a single vote.

But the voters for these awards were idiots, right? Or, maybe, just maybe, it was because Jim Kaat just wasn't that great of a pitcher??

I'm done with this part of the conversation.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Kaat was a rookie in 1972.

um, not even close.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Murray 129 OPS + career. 29% above league average for his career.
Kaat 108 ERA +. 8% above league average career.

29% >>>>> 8%. In fact, 29% is more than three times better than 8%. What part of that is unclear to you?? If Jim Kaat had pitched 29% above league average for his career, then you could say they provided equal value. That didn't happen.

Look at their career totals, and their 162 game averages:

Murray averaged 686 plate appearances per 162 games played. He had 12,817 career ABs, or 18.68 seasons worth of baseball.
Kaat averaged 202 innings pitched per 162 games played. He had 4,530 1/3 IP, or 22.42 seasons worth of baseball.

What this boils down to is that Eddie Murray played about four fewer seasons of baseball than Jim Kaat (3.74 to be precise). So, if their career fWAR is comparable (72.0 for Murray, 70.9 for Kaat), Kaat played 3.75 more seasons to get nearly the same value that Murray did.

At 202 innings pitched per 162 games, here's another way of saying it. If Murray and Kaat started their careers on the same day, and then, several years later, Murray retired, Jim Kaat had to throw another 755 innings to reach his 70.9 fWAR. And he was still a win below Murray at that point.

And, again, as far as their career peaks are concerned, there is no comparison to be made. Murray's peak was at a Hall of Fame level. Kaat's was not.

There are 62 starting pitchers in the Hall. JAWS ranks Kaat the 102nd best starter in history. There are 40 starters not already in the Hall that are more deserving than Kaat. He was a workhorse starter that ate up a lot of innings for a long time. A nice pitcher, but not one worthy of enshrinement in Cooperstown.



His peak was not Hall worthy? Are you freaking kidding me?

Do you understand the concept of context? I've referred to it multiple times. You have to look at what other players in the same league were doing in any given season. He was top 5 in the American League MVP five years in a row between 1981 and 1985, and was 6th in the MVP in 1980. Six years in a row top 6 in the MVP vote, with a composite 152 OPS + (52% above league average) isn't a Hall worthy peak? LOL, ok.

Here's where he finished in the American League in OPS +

1980 8th
1981 3rd
1982 2nd
1983 2nd
1984 1st
1985 5th
1986 7th

Clearly not an elite peak.

Kaat's best full season ERA + was a 131 in 1966. 31% above league average. Murray's six year OPS + composite was 21% better than Kaat's best season.

Jim Kaat received Cy Young votes once.....once in his 24 year career. The Cy Young Award was first given out to a pitcher in both leagues in 1967. Kaat was a rookie in 1972. In a quarter century of baseball, Kaat received never received a single vote outside of the 1975 season. Not top five, or top ten. Not even a single vote.

But the voters for these awards were idiots, right? Or, maybe, just maybe, it was because Jim Kaat just wasn't that great of a pitcher??

I'm done with this part of the conversation.

well, I'm done arguing with someone who either doesn't understand WAR or cherry picks it only when it supports their argument.


I'm also not going to argue with someone who uses stats like ERA+,OPS+ and JAWS. which are not very good modern stats.

72 WAR is 72 WAR, at the end of the day they provided nearly equal value for their careers. If you say one is HOF'er based on value then the other must be.... Kaat is 27th in career fWAR for pitchers (using the far superior FIP over ERA+) ALL TIME . Since 1920 (start of the "live ball era" he is 22nd, right ahead of Glavine ) In fact since 1920 only 36 starting pitchers have provided 60 WAR or more over their careers. He is 22nd.

From his first full season in 1961 to the end of his productive era in 1975 Kaat is 3rd in WAR behind only Gibson and Gaylord Perry. so it's not like he had no peak either.

stop using baseball reference, it's pretty much worthless


P.S. Murray's peak 7 seasons you mentioned put him 6th in MLB WAR over that period with 36.8. That is very good, it is NOT elite, Mike Schmidt and Rickey Henderson put up 49 over that same period , THAT'S elite. (not to mention Murray got 23 of that WAR as a DH and only 49 at first base, which is 20th all time)

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I don't like baseball reference so I don't use their stats. value is value, 72 WAR is 72 WAR and Murray and Kaat were worth the same yet only 1 is a HOF'er?

They actually switched some of their calculating of WAR to the system that the site you like uses after discussing it with them. So maybe they're not so bad eh?

Steve B

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by steve B

They actually switched some of their calculating of WAR to the system that the site you like uses after discussing it with them. So maybe they're not so bad eh?

Steve B

I'd have to look into that, but I'm not a big fan of ERA+ vs FIP nor OPS+ vs wRC+ or wOBA. Plus, Fangraphs using both UZR and DRS on defense is a plus too.

Plus, to be honest, Fangraphs has writers who cover the game, prospects, scouting etc and will follow up discussion on stat validity. BR just seems to be a reference place that was designed in 1992 and never updated. lol

I think it's probably fair to use either,but not to swap between the two so as to back up a particular argument.