I was looking some stuff up on baseball-reference and came up with a fun exercise.
Here is a list of all position players ranked by Wins above Replacement:
Here’s the game; pick someone in the top 50, or top 100, you’re really, really surprised is ranked as high as he is.
Then pick someone ranked way below the top 100 you’re surprised is ranked as low as he is.
Do you buy the rankings? Why do you think the players are ranked where they are?
I’ll start.
#35 Chipper Jones - Seriously, I never in a million years would have thought Chipper Jones was the 35th best position player in the history of the major leagues. Jones is the third-highest ranked third baseman (A-Rod has still played more games at short than at third) of all time, behind Schmidt and Brett. He probably will not quite catch Brett.
Do I buy it? Geez, I dunno. He sure has played for a long time, and he’s been a hell of a hitter. He’s had one good year after another since 1995. I can’t really construct a strong argument why he isn’t #35, but it’s just amazing to me all the time. #231 Carlos Delgado - Even as a Blue Jay fan I know Delgado was not as good as some of his lofty stats would suggest; he was a middling defensive player and his hitting numbers are inflated by context. Still, He WAS a hell of a hitter and played 2000 games, so I’m mildly surprised by this. I think WAR incorrect docks mediocre defensive players too much for theier defense so I think Delgado should rank a bit higher. Not a lot though. I wouldn’t vote him into the Hall of Fame.
I always forget that Eddie Collins (#10!) was supposedly one hell of a ballplayer. I also find it funny that first-ballot HOFer Kirby Pucket checks in at a lofty #222 ranking (although obviously at least part of that is due to a shortened career).
#27 Wade Boggs says hi. (Brett is #31). Speaking of which, I guess a ton of OBP at a medium-level defensive position IS worth a lot, even for someone who only has 118 career home runs.
I’m surprised Vlad Guerrerro at 119 isn’t in the top 100.
Are we more in doubt about our judgment about those players and their careers, or about the quality and usefulness of the stat? Can go either way, ya know.
Something I’ve read from various sources is that third basemen are vastly underrated in terms of Hall of Fame representation. Third base is a weird position in that it demands defensive ability, yet it has this association with also being an offensive position. The problem is that third base is hard to play effectively for 15 years, so a lot of those guys get moved off third base and only get “half credit” for the position.
There are only 11 players listed as third basemen currently in the HoF. There are at least 18 first basemen, second basemen, and shortstops in the HoF. It seems pretty clear that third basemen are held to an unfairly high standard when it comes to the combo of offense/defense. Guys like Ron Santo (105th overall) and Graig Nettles (142nd) should be in already.
I’m on my phone, and the site in the OP is uncooperative, so I don’t know how high he’s ranked, but I’m not surprised. Pujols is stunning in his consistency, and I’m not evan a Cards fan. But he’s one player I actively follow, outside of the Giants.
He’s tied for 29th with 87.2 wins over replacement. He’s directly ahead of Brett and Clemente and also ahead of DiMaggio, Chipper Jones, and Griffey Jr. It jumps out that much more because he’s 31, and the only active player ahead of him is Alex Rodriguez, who’s four years older.
Roger Connor, a guy who played so long ago his first ML team was the Troy Haymakers, is #30? Sure, he played for 18 years, but he led the league in OBP just once, and in OPS just once (and that time in the Players’ League). And although he was league-average for first basemen, he also played at 2B, 3B, and OF and was way below average for those positions. Brings to mind what Bill James said about 19th century baseball stats.
To be fair, if you take a look at Dan Brouthers’ black ink, a lot of those years were pretty well spoken for, and the ones Brouthers didn’t win, Cap Anson did. Connor had eighteen second- or third-place finishes in OBP, SLG, and OPS.
Throw in the fact that he was, or is considered by WAR to be, one of the best defensive players of the era as well, and it’s not so hard to believe that he could have been that valuable without a lot of individual titles. Sort of like Tris Speaker only having one batting title.
Here’s where I think WAR is badly wrong; defense. Baseball Reference’s WAR does not work for defense.
Now, I think most people would agree Albert Pujols is a greater player than Bill Mazeroski was.
But according to WAR, Albery Pujols is as good a defensive player as Bill Mazeroski. That’s… I mean, that’s just flippin’ crazy. Pujols is a very fine defensive first baseman, but Maz was a great defensive SECOND baseman, and there is absolutely no comparison in value between a second baseman and a first baseman in terms of their gloves. Not for one millisecond do I believe Albert Pujols has the same defensive value as Bill Mazeroski.
WAR’s rating of defense has alwys puzzled the hell out of me. Usually it’s generally right; you don’t see it claiming that Dave Kingman was a glove wizard. But it seems to do two things wrong:
Contrary to the concept of Wins Above Replacement, WAR seems to rate players against an AVERAGE, not a replacement level, which tends to warp the numbers downwards for players who have had long careers. If you add up the defensive WAR for all the major league teams it adds up to about zero. That’s… um, inexplicable. It also means that according to WAR a player with 0 defensive WAR has no value, but in fact such a player DOES have value. Average is valuable.
WAR clearly makes no distinction between positions, and so rates a left fielder as being equal in value to a shortstop. I have great respect for Barry Bonds’s skills but WAR ranks him as a more valuable defensive player than any shortstop who ever lived except Ozzie Smith and Mark Belanger (and it’s a close call.) That is absolutely insane. Barry Bonds was a lot better than most left fielders but there have been thirty shortstops, at least, whose defensive abilities were more valuable than those of Barry Bonds.
So in the case of Maz and Pujols I think that while their offensive ranking are accurate, the system underrates Mazeroski and overrates Pujols with the glove. Big time.
When the site puts up a disclaimer, I don’t think the list came from “the burning bush”
But I was suprised to see Jim Thome at 53. Yeah he’ll get his 600 homers, but his black and gray ink is lacking. He’s a borderline HoFer.
I don’t know why, but this seems odd. Stargell first ballot HoF. Clark got 4.4% his first and only year. On this list here is how they rank.
Will Clark
Willie Stargell
I know sabermetrics or whatever it’s called, plus all the new ways to rate players is the thing now days, but it’s turning a very human game into something very abstract.
Stargell at 125 strikes me as being appropriate. He was a very good hitter but if you think about it it’s pretty easy to think up a lot of better players. #125 solidly puts you in the Hall of Fame.
Oh, come on, not this again, please.
Baseball has always loved statistics. Statistics have been a big deal in baseball for way more than a century. Baseball fans have always had fun with statistics. There’s nothing not “human” about it. It’s just one more way to have fun with the game.
Let’s have fun talking about this, not take jabs at what we think baseball fans should or shouldn’t have fun with.
Alright, here’s another pairing that blows me away:
#38 Rod Carew
#295 Lou Brock
I knew Carew was an excellent player of course, but really, if you asked me to list my personal Top 50 players of all time there’s no way he’d be in it.
Brock at 295 doesn’t surprise me that much, I guess, but it’s interesting because he’s a Hall of Famer.
Brock’s score is hurt by his defense, a case where maybe the number is right. Brock had a reputation for being an unusually bad outfielder, especially for man with speed; he had hands of iron, and by all accounts did not use his speed well in the outfield.
Cal Ripken at 26. I think this goes with my “the Streak actually made Ripken UNDERrated” thesis; who thinks of him as a top-5 player of his generation? But there it is.
Also, Cesar Cedeno and Jose Cruz tied at 155 is kind of cool.
RickJay, I couldn’t agree more with you on your critique of BP’s dWAR stat. I’m not quite sure how they arrive at it, but they seem to be "doing it wrong’. I base this on the modern players I’ve watched a bit of, whose stats vary dramatically year to year for no discernible reason. I am not a BP or B-Reference subscriber, so I don’t know if your list changes all that dramatically if we just look at oWAR. I have doubts about oWAR’s ability to normalize across eras too.
Of course baseball fans love stats more than probably any other game. But my point was some of the “new” stats sometimes don’t make sense to me. Stargell at 125 is good enough to get to the HOF, but Clark at 124 is off the ballot after one year.
The HOF voters are taking other things into consideration when they cast their ballots. That’s why I find some of the “new” ways to determine who is good, great, etc. to be more like a video game or an all time fantasy league.
I’m not down on it. When I see a player I really liked with the new/adjusted stats, I’m all like - see I told you that Rickey Henderson at #14 is the second best leftfielder in American League history. And Tony Phillips at #185 makes my day. One of the most versatile players ever. And he’s ahead of Dale Murphy, Matt Williams and Jim Rice.