Not Just Friends of Frisch – Part 1

Regular HHS contributor no statistician but (or nsb) has authored this series of posts on the Hall of Fame, and the perennial questions of which players are there who shouldn’t be, and which aren’t but should. Unlike some debates on this topic, though, nsb applies a metrics-based approach to this task, and invites you to do the same in contributing to the discussion. So, without further ado, here is nsb.

Adam Darowski’s Hall of Stats is a reasoned, statistical attempt to evaluate top performers across baseball history by recognizing any player who scores 100 or better on the scale Darowski and his cohorts have created. The aim is to provide an alternative to, if not a correction of, the amorphous baggy monster that is the official Hall in Cooperstown. Like any such attempt, it shows a few built-in biases and, as a result, generates some results that seem partially illusory, but it does, I think, come as close to an impartial view of evaluation as exists. Importantly, even when I disagree with its rankings, I understand the basis of the disagreement.

In a sub-feature of the Hall of Stats called the Hall of Consensus, Darowski supplies an expanded look at all players who have been enshrined, either by himself, the official Hall of Fame, or a selected group of other ‘personal’ Halls of Fame. In this easy-to-follow listing, one can readily determine the sheep and the goats from Darowski’s point of view, and it is to the goats that I want to bring some attention.

It’s common nowadays to sneer at the notorious ‘Friends of Frisch’ in the Hall of Fame, for example, but how many are there in reality? I find nine—George Kelly, Freddie Lindstrom, Rick Ferrell, Chick Hafey, Jesse Haines, Jim Bottomley, Travis Jackson, Dave Bancroft, and Lloyd Waner. Waner and Ferrell have no direct connection to Frankie Frisch, but they are low performers of that era and so come under the larger umbrella.

A tenth, Ross Youngs, falls into an overlapping category among Darowski’s under 100 group: those players in the Hall of Fame whose careers were blighted by injury or terminated by untimely death, with the result that their cumulative stats fail to attain the requisite level. Among these, only Youngs seems questionable. Addie Joss, Chuck Klein, Dizzy Dean, and Kirby Puckett, all with Hall of Stats ratings of 85 or better, would undoubtedly have surpassed 100 had their careers gone on in a normal manner. Youngs at a 61 rating might or might not have made it.

A third subset is comprised of these 19th Century players of note: Tommy McCarthy, Hugh Duffy, Sam Thompson, Hughie Jennings, Mickey Welch, Bid McPhee, Willie Keeler, and Joe Kelley.

What remains is a group of forty-eight post-1900 players, elected either by baseball writers or various veterans’ committees, who have been or are about to be enshrined in Cooperstown, but who fall short of the Hall of Stats cut-off. These are the players I want to bring forth for discussion.

Catchers: Roger Bresnahan, Ray Schalk, Roy Campanella

First basemen: Frank Chance, Orlando Cepeda, Tony Perez

Second basemen: Johnny Evers, Tony Lazzeri, Billy HermanBobby DoerrRed Schoendienst, Nellie Fox, Bill Mazeroski

Third Basemen: Pie Traynor, George Kell

Shortstops: Rabbit Maranville, Joe Sewell, Phil Rizzuto, Luis Aparicio

Left Fielders: Heinie Manush, Ralph Kiner, Lou Brock, Jim Rice

Center Fielders: Max Carey, Edd Roush, Hack Wilson, Earle Combs, Earl Averill

Right Fielders: Harry Hooper, Sam Rice, Kiki Cuyler, Enos Slaughter, Harold Baines

LH Starters: Rube Marquard, Herb Pennock, Lefty Gomez

RH Starters: Jack Chesbro, Chief Bender, Waite Hoyt, Burleigh Grimes, Bob Lemon, Catfish Hunter, Jack Morris

Relievers: Rollie Fingers, Rich Gossage, Bruce Sutter, Lee Smith, Trevor Hoffman

In subsequent postings, I will provide some comparative statistics for these forty-eight players, occasional observations that seem pertinent, and a challenge to HHS contributors. 

For now, consider players not yet in the Hall of Fame, but who make the grade in Adam’s Hall of Stats, our own Circle of Greats, or maybe just your personal favorites. Are any of them better Hall of Fame choices than any of the forty-eight players above? If so, why is that?

Leave a Reply

63 Comments on "Not Just Friends of Frisch – Part 1"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Bob Eno (epm)
Guest

Sounds like this series will be fun and a good way to stretch the CoG-type discussions we’ve had. It looks to me as though among these 48, only Campy is in our Circle, and that due to special considerations.

Doug
Guest

Very telling observation, Bob.

We’ve been deriding the quality of players on our recent CoG ballots, but most of those players look better than many of the forty-eight that nsb has identified.

I think the comparison to Hall of Stats is most useful because, unlike the CoG, the HoS is matched to the total number of HoF players from all eras. Scanning the HoS roster, many who are not in the HoF are expansion era and 19th century players; of the bottom 48 on the HoS roster, only two (Wilhelm and Koufax) are in the CoG.

Bob Eno (epm)
Guest
Bob Lemon — what an unusual B-R profile. The guy won 200 games — in 9 seasons as a regular starter he averaged 20 wins per year. He had a .618 W-L Pct. and 119 ERA+. For all this, he earns a total of 37.6 pWAR. (He adds over 10 more from his hitting.) This gives me a chance to post a comment that I’ve been trying to add for several days on the last CoG string; it was repeatedly rejected by HHS software, and Doug reported to me that it had been reported as “spam” — so, caveat lector!… Read more »
no statistician but
Guest

Bob:

Whitey Ford?

Bob Eno (epm)
Guest
No, I’m not he. I’m younger and pleasingly balder. But he would be another example of extreme alignment of Rdef and PF in a direction that would tend to undervalue him. My own thinking turned to Three Finger Brown. But before we go to far down this road, I’d like to ask whether any of those here who understand WAR better than I can turn this line of thinking off by pointing to some obvious flaw. If there is none, then I think the implications are very broad, and B-R may need to do another WAR revision. No further comments… Read more »
Doug
Guest
If a pitcher is “penalized” for having a strong defense in a pitcher’s park, one might expect the same WAR penalty would apply to fielders. Just to pick the most obvious current example, the A’s Matt Chapman has amassed a gaudy 5.7 dWAR (48 Rfield) in just 2000 (exactly) innings, with his park-assisted range factor (0.7 plays per 9 innings better than league) the most obvious component (the “old-fashioned” Total Zone Rating metric has Chapman at 18 defensive runs above average at home, but only 6 above on the road). Doesn’t seem like any double-counting penalty is being applied for… Read more »
Bob Eno (epm)
Guest
Doug, I’ve found the B-R formula for calculating Park Factor on the B-R site. I cannot imagine that it was not winner of the TOA (Total Opacity Award) for the year in which it was first published, although credit seems to go to the now defunct Total Baseball site. (I miss those massive volumes.) I do not actually understand some of the notation being used in the formulas (lots of dash lines and | marks, which mean nothing to me unless they are for some reason typographical substitutes for parentheses and normal nominator/denominator marks). Nevertheless, one thing that’s clear is… Read more »
Doug
Guest
Park factors for defense would be most noticeable for foul territory for corner infielders and, slightly, for catchers; and also for outfielders in terms of park dimensions, atmospherics and unusual configurations (even something as subtle as the rounded outfield corners in Kaufman Stadium). Rdrs, I think, considers the likelihood of a play being made on a batted ball hit with requisite force (weakly to strongly) to a particular part of the field. So, that may be an easy or hard play to make depending on the positioning of the fielder, but he will only receive the credit or demerit based… Read more »
mosc
Guest

I feel like park dimensions still play havoc with this stuff. It probably normalizes out over the entire team with park factor but at individual positions, I think there are real dirty details. Third base in Oakland is one such place and as I’ve pointed out before, left field in fenway and right field in Yankee Stadium are two other oddballs that defy the other positional norms.

Michael Sullivan
Guest
I certainly hope nobody is being that blind, and I doubt they are, but unfortunately, I’m not sure there’s any good way to account for these park anomalies that won’t have potential problems. If you just take those plays out of the reckoning, because they are unplayable in most parks, you have a bunch of problems: Where do you draw the line? Is there enough data to know what balls would be unplayable elsewhere? What if a ball would playable in 3-4 parks and not just Oakland? What about 1/2 the parks? Do you really want to completely ignore the… Read more »
Michael Sullivan
Guest
Doug, I think you’re missing what might be happening. If this double counting is correct, then *pitchers* are getting penalized double for pitching in pitcher’s parks and bonused double for pitching in hitter’s parks, but for *fielders* it would be the opposite, because they would getting credit for some runs that were really “saved by the park” So Matt Chapman’s greater runs at home than away is consistent with this hypothesis. It also is suggesting that players with high rField in pitcher’s parks may be overvalued. If the fielding numbers are fair then I don’t believe this double counting could… Read more »
Michael Sullivan
Guest
This is a really interesting point, and I absolutely could imagine that there could be a significant effect even if it’s not a true double counting. One checking factor though — looking at fangraph’s FIP based WAR. If you look at Lemon, his fWAR is even lower than bWAR, while Reuschel’s fWAR is roughly the same as his bWAR. This isn’t a knockdown argument, I have a lot of suspicions about fWAR completely ignoring pitcher BIP skill, and I think it’s clear that there is *some*. But it does suggest that some more research is needed before concluding that Lemon… Read more »
Bob Eno (epm)
Guest
nsb, I’d like to ask for a point of clarification. Doug mentioned that you’d be providing a series of posts, so I’m not sure whether you’d like us to start picking individual players to comment on now, or would prefer that we wait as you use coming posts to take us through the list in sections. By the way, judging by last year, the post-CoG period has a very (very) low participation rate, but a good number of comments from those who logged on, so if the same happens this year (e.g., this comment will be the 16th on this… Read more »
no statistician but
Guest
The next post will consider catchers and first basemen, an easy start. The rest of the infield follows in post three, outfielders in post four, and pitchers lastly. I’d prefer that you wait to make serious arguments until each position and its group member are presented with some basic stats, notably each player’s HOS rating, but some others as well that try to put that rating in perspective. Doug and I came to the conclusion that to assess the grand mass at one go would be a mistake, hence the breakdown. Thirteen outfielders and fifteen pitchers will messy enough, when… Read more »
Bob Eno (epm)
Guest

Well I already blew it on Lemon, I guess, but I’ll avoid serious talk about the others and hold further comments on Lemon till later.

I’m working on some very intense frivolous arguments in the meantime. I’m not sure anyone will be able to tell the difference.

no statistician but
Guest

Your comment was welcome as a good start to the discussion, assuming we have one. Once you see the second part, which goes at specifics, I think you’ll find more to say.

Bob Eno (epm)
Guest
To make some use of the time while we anticipate Part 2, I’ve compiled some stats on the 19th century figures listed as borderline in this post. I’ve included total bWAR, peak 5 season WAR, WAR rate (per 162IP/500PA), Hall of Stats rating, position (for position players), career length (counting 3000 IP or 5000 PA as 1.0), and noting any special considerations. (In this group, for that last point I’ve noted that Mickey Welch pitched during the era when the mound was closer to the plate, and that Hugh Duffy is celebrated for his BA record; normally this would concern… Read more »
mosc
Guest

I like peak-5, though I always forget if it’s a continuous or non-continuous sampling. I don’t like career length normalized like that. Generally I’m less focused on career length. WAR captures a lot of that already. When talking about all-time greats, I like WAR, peak numbers, and WAA+. Probably interesting to pull out defensive value as you’ve done as well.

Paul E
Guest
mosc, When Bill James did the historical baseball abstract with “Win Shares”, he used career total, WS/162G, peak 5 consecutive seasons, and best 3 seasons. He added his own subjective opinion when comparing/rating the players. Unlike WAR, due to the likely improvement of athletes over time, James made adjustments to all these Win Share totals. That adjustment kind of makes sense when you think about it…..like what are the odds of Doak Walker at 5’10” and 180# winning an NFL MVP trophy in 1988 or 2018 (yeah, I realize he’s been dead a long time but that’s not what I’m… Read more »
Bob Eno (epm)
Guest
Paul, I think WAR, WAA, ERA+, OPS+, all make the adjustment by treating each season as a closed system and assessing each player’s performance against benchmark aggregates specific to that season. As I understand it (and I did understand it, once, years ago, when I read “Win Shares”), the platform on which Win Shares is based is significantly different, being anchored not in aggregate averages and norms but in specific outcomes (wins), each player being assessed initially within the framework of team success, with those results the basis for comparisons with other players league-wide. Perhaps the difference is that the… Read more »
Bob Eno (epm)
Guest
Hi mosc, thanks for the feedback! In earlier versions I’ve done both Peak5 (continuous) and Top5 (non-continuous), but they so rarely were much different that I dropped the latter here, and I’m thinking of switching just to Peak7 (continuous — for 19th century guys, I think I’ll need to turn that into a rate stat too, since season length was so variable). I like to do career length precisely because it suggests how much of WAR is a matter of capturing longevity. I’ll think about adding WAA+, although there’s not too much room, and I think it tends to duplicate… Read more »
Doug
Guest

You could use JAWS together with Peak7, as JAWS is based on the average of career WAR and best 7 years WAR, and is intended as an evaluator of HoF worthiness.

Mike H
Guest

If anyone is interested in “HOF worthiness,” it might be interesting to also look at the CAWS Career Gauge – based on Win Shares. At the moment, you can go to seamheads.com and download an 80-page monograph explaining the system (or write to me at profhoban@gmail.com and I will send it). The monograph (is an update of my book: DEFINING GREATNESS: A Hall of Fame Handbook (2012). Among other things, the monograph does indicate who belongs in the HOF as well as who is there and does not belong.

Bob Eno (epm)
Guest

New assessment stats are always popular on this site, Mike. Can you specify which link on seamheads you’re referring to? (Looking forward to the update, I just ordered your book.)

By the way, we had a recent discussion on this site about your seamheads post on dWAR and Matt Chapman.

Mike H
Guest
The link is right on the home page of seamheads.com. The monograph (A Century of Modern Baseball) is on the right hand side. Just click on the link and you can download it. You may also note that I have a couple of other recent articles re WAR and JAWS on the site. Charlie Blackmon’s rankings in 2018 are an even better gauge of the apparent “fielding problem” WAR has with certain players. Just to clarify – the CAWS Career Gauge is not really new. I believe it may predate both WAR and JAWS. You will note from the monograph… Read more »
Bob Eno (epm)
Guest

Thanks for specifying the article, Mike. It was in such plain view that I overlooked it.

Bob Eno (epm)
Guest
On Blackmon (whose ’18 stats I hadn’t looked at before), I think you raise an interesting problem by noting the heavy weight B-R places on fielding. Looking at range factor alone, Blackmon, playing CF, seems to have reached about 20% fewer balls than the league average for the position, which would translate to the neighborhood of 60 balls dropping that other center fielders would have caught. Blackmon’s really awful Rdrs number (-28) suggests that this is confirmed by observation matched against BIS established norms, though the absolute value of the number incorporates degree of difficulty (probability in terms of norms)… Read more »
Bob Eno (epm)
Guest
There’s an interesting philosophical discussion there, Doug, involving both the significance of 7 years, the trade-offs between contiguous and discontiguous, and the utility of averaging two figures that represent a quantity and a quality measure. I never actually look at the JAWS number myself (I have no feel for it): I look at the separate figures and the rank that B-R’s version of Jaffe’s system kicks up. (And I have to say I’m not in sympathy with the positional adjustment component.) Maybe I’ll try adding it as an experiment, but it would be odd to add it without dropping both… Read more »
Richard Chester
Guest

Weird factoid about Nellie Fox. For a 15 year stretch he had between 11 and 18 SO in each of those years.

Mike L
Guest

Two weird factoids about Joe Sewell. In his last 5539 PA, he had 48 SO. You have to wrap your head around that one. Last year, Yoan Moncada had 47 through April. And, in 1927, Sewell was 3 for 19 in SB.

Voomo Zanzibar
Guest

Seasons with CS more than 2x SO:

29 / 5 … Charlie Hollocher
29 / 8 … Eddie Collins
17 / 8 … Edd Roush
16 / 7 … Joe Sewell
16 / 0 … Herb Washington
14 / 6 … Matt Alexander
11 / 0 … Larry Lintz
10 / 5 … Charlie Hollocher
10 / 1 … Matt Alexander
9 / 0 … Don Hopkins

5 of those 10 played for Oakland between 74-77

Bob Eno (epm)
Guest

Don’t forget Allan Lewis, another of Charlie O’s experiments, 4 / 0 in ’73.

Lewis and, more profoundly, Herb Washington in ’74-’75, did more than simply avoid striking out over the course of a season: no pitcher got a single strike past them. Washington’s strikeless career would suggest that he had the greatest batting eye in history, yet, somehow, after 105 games he was gone!

Paul E
Guest

Bob Eno
You may recall Herb W was the fastest 55 meter/indoor sprinter in the world and about as much of a baseball player as Wilma Rudolph. The sprinter/pinch runner was a luxury of the 25 man roster back when teams carried 10 pitchers. I don’t recall if that was a Charlie Finley idea or Alvin Dark or Chuck Tanner (1976? A’s)?

Bob Eno (epm)
Guest

At the time it was peddled as Charlie O.’s idea, and Lewis was his initial experiment. I don’t recall why Rudolph never made it past the low minors, but she was, after all, much older than Washington and her batting eye could have declined before Charlie O. got to her.

CursedClevelander
Guest

Closest thing we’ve come to a Designated Runner since then is Terrance Gore. Though he seems to be an expanded roster luxury (though he has usually made the playoff rosters of teams he’s been on).

He’s definitely the best of the bunch when it comes to SB%, but will he be able to topple Allan Lewis’s 6 hits?

Paul E
Guest

Bob Eno,
I’m still surprised they didn’t pull a Jim Thorpe on Wilma and strip her of her medals in light of her professional minor league baseball career.

Mike H
Guest
Career Assessments – JAWS and CAWS JAWS calculates the career value of a player in a manner somewhat similar to the CAWS Career Gauge – but with two big differences. (CAWS is an acronym for career assessment/win shares) Here are the formulas: CAWS = CV + .25(CWS – CV) where CWS = career win shares and CV = core value (10 best WS seasons) JAWS = 7WAR + .5(WAR – 7WAR) where WAR = career WAR and 7 WAR = peak value (7 best WAR seasons) You can see that by taking the 10 best seasons CAWS is looking for… Read more »
mosc
Guest

Meh, both formulations are arbitrary. I proposed a sort of geometric sum for counting seasonal WAR over a 25 year period to weight peak against career in a more continuous fashion. It comes out very similarly but perhaps values peak (koufax like peak) more substantially.

I really don’t like win shares. Era vs era comparisons to me are somewhat irrelevant. relative greatness to the mean is timeless. I do worry that nobody has properly looked at the standard deviation of “value” through the years, which if it has indeed gotten smaller would reflect poorly on earlier players.

Richard Chester
Guest

mosc: What about the WAR averaging system you suggested several years ago, either here or on the old BR blog?

Mike H
Guest
“Arbitrary?” Of course, both formulations are arbitrary – as are all “advanced sabermetrics.” Once you get past BA, ERA, OBP, etc., assumptions and judgments must be made at some point = “arbitrary.” The real question is HOW ARBITRARY are the assumptions and judgments. WAR is far more arbitrary than Win Shares – as witnessed by the various WAR results out there. Since Bill James spent the better part of 25 years developing Win Shares and since it is the most mathematically consistent of the metrics of which I am aware, for me it is the “most accurate” at this point… Read more »
Bob Eno (epm)
Guest
Well, perhaps the different WAR stats are less a measure of the instability of the concept than the fact that, so far as I know, there is as yet no second Win Shares formula (who wants to go head to head with Bill James?). As I wrote above, I think WAR and Win Shares answer different questions, and I think both are of value, and both have potentially varied methods of yielding reasonable answers, though WS has only one model. I understand the impulse to collapse peak and total value into a single index, but I really am not sure… Read more »
Mike H
Guest

“there is as yet no second Win Shares formula.” I confess to being confused by this statement. Why would there be a second formula if you got it right the first time?

Paul E
Guest
Mike H I’m a fan of the WS system since it doesn’t appear to take fielding prowess (or ineptitude) too far. You know, like if Ron Santo makes 370 assists and Ken Boyer makes 340 assists, how much do those 30 assists (or, 1 ground ball every 5 games) really amount to? dWAR would, in my opinion, blow those 30 assists way out of proportion. Chapman, in my opinion, is a good example…..However, WAR seems to be the metric of choice for the baseball statistics obsessed community. I do believe the basis of WS is runs created and that’s as… Read more »
Mike H
Guest

Paul,

I certainly agree that the major problem with WAR is that at times it blows the value of fielding way out of proportion.

…..”However, WAR seems to be the metric of choice for the baseball statistics obsessed community.”
I attribute this fact not to the validity of WAR but to fact that B-R adopted it – and B-R is the site of choice.

The biggest surprise for me is the fact that Gary Sheffield has more than 400 career win shares. I did not expect that.

Paul E
Guest
Mike H “The biggest surprise for me is the fact that Gary Sheffield has more than 400 career win shares. I did not expect that.” In a period of 1748 games at his peak, in ~7,400 PA’s, Sheffield had a 154 OPS+. Dick Allen, in a career of 1,749 games and 7,315 PA’s, had a 156 OPS+. Allen, I believe is credit with 342 Win Shares for his career. Sheffield had an additional 3,500 PA’s prior to and after his peak. Both are regarded as inferior fielders so, I guess, the system actually works and Sheffield’s total WS shouldn’t be… Read more »
Bob Eno (epm)
Guest
Paul and Mike, We’ve had some discussions about the value of dWAR over the past year or so, and I think the major thing to bear in mind when considering it for recent seasons is that current dWAR stats are based on Rdrs, and Rdrs is a translation of BIS methodology. My feeling is that if you read the various Fielding Bibles (Vol. III is, I think, the most important in this respect) it’s very hard to dismiss the methodology of BIS and the runs saved/cost calculations that derive from it. It’s worth saying again that the system is Bill… Read more »
Paul E
Guest
Bob, Did we ever conclude that the system (BIS) was so new that there is no way to give Santo or Boyer or B. Robinson or, for that matter, Yost, Billy Cox, or Puddin Head Jones, enough credit for the work they (POSSIBLY) did at 3b? I mean, nowadays, these ‘investigators” are making judgment calls with such detail that is it not conceivable that the lack of such depth of investigation until recently cheats the non-moderns for comparison’s sake? Kind of like, yeah, I know Ty Cobb would only hit .285 today but Ichiro would have been a career .375… Read more »
Bob Eno (epm)
Guest

I think it cuts both ways, Paul — those guys might have looked worse under the BIS microscope.

The bottom line is that there’s no way to know. We’re stuck with Rtot figures for the pre-Rdrs eras, just as we’re stuck with long periods where stats like SF and CS weren’t tallied — not to mention data gaps that persist to the mid-20th century.

Paul E
Guest
Bob, “those guys might have looked worse under the BIS microscope.” Which brings us to the point that Sam Rice and Zach Wheat and Heinie Manush are all in the Hall of Fame because, at time of induction, their career totals and/or peak accomplishments could only be evaluated and compared to their contemporaries and predecessors – not in the light of Al Kaline and Clemente or Reggie Jackson and Tony Gwynn. Is Cooperstown supposed to ‘deselect” (Human Resources Department-speak for ‘$#!^-canning” a co-worker) these lesser lights like all these websites talk about in light of 70 years or more of… Read more »
Michael Sullivan
Guest
Paul — I’ve addressed this before. If I fielder really makes 30 more assists than another fielder given all the same balls over the course of a season, that is as valuable as having 30 more hits! Would you really say that there’s basically not much difference between an OBP of .350 and .390 (all else being equal). That what 30 hits does over 700 PAs. The question about the fielding metrics is NOT whether balls saved are roughly as valuable as the formula says, they CLEARLY ARE if you think about it from other side for more than 5… Read more »
Paul E
Guest
Sully, Is it that easy to tell by the eye test that, for example, Chapman makes the play but Machado doesn’t? Or, for that matter, now that Andujar has set a precedent of piss-poor glove work at the hot corner, is he doomed to never improve? Are those who are observing him for the sake of the BIS exercise going to say that, “Geeze, Andujar just made that play- of course Chapman makes it, too”? Also, the ball down the line that gets snagged by Chapman, is that saving a single or a double? It just seems to me that… Read more »
Bob Eno (epm)
Guest

Mike, As Fangraphs says in explaining the multiplicity of WAR formulas, “Given how complicated baseball is, you would expect that people would arrive at different solutions to the same problem.” When it comes to “no second Win Shares formula,” I don’t think it’s possible that it’s because Jamesian WS is perfect — even if it were, there are plenty of statheads doltish enough not to recognize the fact and to offer inferior versions. I feel pretty sure that James’s authority is the major discouraging force. “RallyMonkey” is a less intimidating voice to challenge.

Michael Sullivan
Guest

In fact, from what I’ve gathered, there is no second Win Shares formula because nearly all the statheads with the chops to make a new one, decided instead that wins above replacement was a more relevant framework than wins above zero.

So effectively the various WAR formulas *are* the competition for win shares, and from what I can tell most active sabermetricians prefer one or more of them to Win Shares if they have to choose.

wpDiscuz