This material is adapted from the book,
BASEBALL’S
BEST: The TRUE Hall of Famers by Michael Hoban, Ph.D. (booklocker.com,
June 2007).
Chapter 2
The NEWS Hall of Fame
Monitor
Even when you have found
a system like Win Shares which seems to be completely fair and unbiased in
judging the value of a player for each season, there are still some questions
to answer as to how to use the system
most effectively when you are trying to decide which players had the
best careers. This is, of course,
related to such questions as
“Who belongs in the Hall of Fame?”
Perhaps the most important
question in this regard is
how
to judge a player’s longevity as
compared
to his core performance (his best
seasons). How, for example, do you compare a player like Al Kaline,
who played for twenty-two years to a player like Joe DiMaggio, who played
for only thirteen? Both were
great players and both are in the Hall of
Fame. During his career, Kaline
accumulated 443 total win shares compared to 387 for
DiMaggio. But, do you think
that anyone would be inclined to claim that Kaline was a better player than
DiMaggio? I do not think
so. My point is that
one
must look at something other than total career win shares in order
to better distinguish among the truly great
players.
It is my contention that
it is helpful to examine a player's ten best seasons (what I am calling his
“core value”) in order
to get a better idea of how good he really is (or
was). But, at the same time,
one must give some appropriate credit
to a player's career achievements.
It is this balancing of career accomplishments and core value that
will tell us who had the best careers of all time.
During his ten best seasons,
Joe DiMaggio accumulated 325 win shares – meaning that he averaged 32.5
win shares per season for those ten seasons – a truly impressive
achievement. As we saw above,
only nine players in the major leagues (two in the American League and seven
in the National League) managed to earn 30 win shares in
2006. Imagine how difficult
it is to average over 30 win shares for your ten best
seasons. Al Kaline earned 268
win shares over his ten best seasons.
This represents a very good core but nowhere near DiMaggio’s
accomplishment. And so we can
begin to see that Joe D was a substantially better
player.
Core Value
and Non-traditional Evaluative Win Shares (NEWS)
The Hall of Fame requires
that a player must have at least ten years of major league service to be
considered for induction into the Hall.
And, if we are going to speak of a player's "core value” for
the purpose of evaluating his career, then it seems appropriate to use this
"ten year" measure. That is,
I will define a player's core value (CV) as the sum of the win shares that
he earned during his ten best seasons.
CV
(Core Value) = sum of win shares for a player's ten best
seasons.
This core value tells us
a great deal about the true value of a player’s career.
Why 10
Seasons?
No doubt there will be those
who will advocate looking at a player’s “peak value” and suggest
that three or five or seven seasons should be used to define a player’s
“peak years.” And,
of course, doing that could be helpful as
well. But that is why I have
coined the term “core value” – so as not to confuse this concept
with that of a player’s peak years.
Different players will have a different number of peak
years. But I am suggesting that
regardless of how many peak years a player may have had – the player’s
ten best seasons may be considered the core of his
career. It is my belief that
if we are looking for the players with the absolute
best careers (befitting those
in the Hall of Fame), then we want to make our criteria
as tough as
is
reasonable. And considering
a player’s core value to be his ten best seasons seems to do
that. (And, as noted earlier,
the Hall of Fame requires ten seasons in the major leagues for
consideration.)
Now, how will we give adequate
credit for a player's total career win
shares? Consider the
following. The CV already includes
at least 55% of a player's career win shares for all of the great position
players - even those with the longest
careers. For example, Hank Aaron
played for twenty-three seasons and accumulated 643 career win
shares. During his ten best
seasons, he earned 356 win shares.
This represents 55% of his total win
shares. In fact, this is one
of the lowest CV percentages for any of the truly great position
players. So, this means that
if we add an additional 25% of the career win shares not already included
in the CV, then it would seem that we are certainly giving appropriate
recognition to those players who had exceptionally long
careers.
Therefore, I will define
Non-traditional Evaluative Win Shares (NEWS) as follows:
NEWS
(Non-traditional Evaluative Win Shares)
=
CV + .25( CWS
– CV)
(where CWS
means total career win
shares)
One additional note would
seem to be appropriate at this point.
There are certain players such as Sandy Koufax and Jackie Robinson
who had brief but outstanding careers.
We will see that defining core value in this way does not automatically
put these players at a disadvantage.
It is simply necessary to include within the NEWS HOF Monitor some
logical way of assessing these short but great
careers. Actually, I will show
that both of these players have HOF
numbers.
I should point out at this
time that throughout this book I will be dealing with those players who played
the majority of their seasons in the major leagues during the 20th
century – that is, from 1901 to the
present. I will not examine
any 19th century players since the game was so different at that
time.
Why 25%?
NEWS is all about using the Win Shares system in trying to create
an appropriate balance between CWS (career win shares) and CV (core value)
– in order to judge who had the best baseball
careers. In trying to create this balance, I wanted to give a fair
value to a player’s longevity so that his core value (ten best seasons)
did not overwhelm his career numbers.
This required me to make an educated judgment
call.
In examining the numbers, I made the decision that the NEWS should
represent at least two-thirds of a player’s career win
shares. The 25% evolved from
this decision. That is, every
player’s NEWS score represents at least 67% of his career win
shares. For most players, it represents a much higher percentage
than that. I should add that
I did experiment with using other percentages such as 15% and
33%. For example, if we use
33% in the formula instead of 25%, a few relatively small changes would take
place – obviously benefitting those players like Hank Aaron and Pete
Rose who had particularly long careers.
But, after much deliberation, I finally decided that 25% of the non-core
win shares seemed to address the value of a player’s longevity in the
fairest manner – strictly a judgment call.
Players with longer
careers and more career win shares obviously end up with a smaller percentage
of their win shares reflected in their NEWS
score. And the opposite is true
for players who had shorter but still outstanding
careers. But, of course, that
is one of the points behind NEWS – to give
appropriate credit to a player’s
core performance (his ten best years).
In
creating a HOF monitor using Win Shares, it is important to note that it
is NOT the players with the longest careers who are sometimes at a disadvantage
for the Hall of Fame – but rather those with a somewhat shorter
career. For example, every player
who has 400 career win shares and who has been eligible has been elected
to the Hall of Fame.
Players like Joe DiMaggio, Hank Greenberg and
Joe Jackson (all with shorter careers) had much better careers than their
career win shares might suggest.
Consider the following examples which show the NEWS score divided
by career win shares for selected Hall of Famers (and Joe
Jackson).
Hank
Aaron
67%
Lou
Gehrig
84%
Babe
Ruth
71%
Joe
DiMaggio
88%
Honus
Wagner 73%
Hank
Greenberg
99%
George
Brett
76%
Joe
Jackson
99%
Rogers
Hornsby
82%
Ralph
Kiner
100%
Johnny
Bench
83%
Jackie Robinson
100%
Hank Aaron had 643
career win shares compared to 387 for Joe DiMaggio because Hank played for
many more seasons. This does
not really give a fair picture of how good each player really
was. Aaron’s NEWS score of 428 compared to Joe’s
score of 341 is a much better indicator of their relative
careers. Hank had the better career – but not by as much as
the career win shares might suggest.
Arky Vaughan and Brooks
Robinson
Arky Vaughan and
Brooks Robinson were both outstanding infielders who are in the Hall of Fame.
The numbers that they accumulated
during their careers illustrate rather well what the NEWS is designed to
demonstrate. Both of these players
accumulated 356 win shares during their
careers. But that does not mean that their careers were similar
in any way. Vaughan played for
fourteen seasons and Robinson for
twenty-three. Arky’s core
value was 308 meaning that he averaged almost 31 win shares for his ten best
seasons – a truly great
performance. Brooks’ CV
was 247 indicating that he averaged almost 25 win shares for his ten best
– a very good career but not nearly as good as
Vaughan. Arky’s NEWS score
of 320 places him among the top 35 position players of the 20th
century. Brooks’ score
of 274 is respectable but cannot compare to that of
Vaughan.
Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter
Here is an example
to illustrate the value of NEWS for active
players. At the end of the 2006 season, Alex Rodriguez had 340
career win shares, a core value of 317 and a NEWS score of
323. This would place him just ahead of Arky Vaughan and among
the top 35 position players of the 20th century – indicating
that he already has clear HOF numbers.
On the other hand, Derek Jeter had 277 career win shares, a core value
of 258 and a NEWS score of 263.
As we will see, a NEWS score of 280 represents clear HOF
numbers. This means that if
Jeter does not improve his core value (which he can do), he will need 344
career win shares to reach a NEWS score of
280. Obviously, he can do this
with a few more solid seasons.
And, at this point, we can say that he will almost certainly
establish indisputable credentials for the Hall of
Fame.
As an example of
how the NEWS HOF Monitor works, Here are two lists which show the 25 position
players and the 25 starting pitchers who have had the best careers during
the 20th century – based on their on-field performance (hitting,
fielding and pitching). All
numbers are current through the end of the 2006 season.
CWS = career Win
Shares
CV = core value
NEWS = career
value.
1. Babe
Ruth
(1914-1935)
756
460
534
2. Ty
Cobb
(1905-1928)
722
419
495
3. Barry
Bonds
(1986-
)
686
427
492
4. Honus
Wagner
(1897-1917)
655
422
480
5. Willie
Mays
(1951-1973)
642
389
452
6. Tris
Speaker
(1907-1928)
630
388
449
7. Mickey
Mantle
(1951-1968)
565
399
441
8. Stan
Musial
(1941-1963)
604
378
435
9. Ted
Williams
(1939-1960)
555
394
434
10. Hank
Aaron
(1954-1976)
643
356
428
11. Eddie
Collins
(1906-1930)
574
376
426
12. Rogers
Hornsby
(1915-1937)
502
381
411
13. Lou
Gehrig
(1923-1939)
489
384
410
14. Joe
Morgan
(1963-1984)
512
341
384
15. Mel
Ott
(1926-1947)
528
335
383
16. Nap
Lajoie
(1896-1916)
496
334
375
17. Mike
Schmidt
(1972-1989)
467
338
370
18. Frank
Robinson
(1956-1976)
519
316
367
19. Pete
Rose
(1963-1986)
547
307
367
20. Rickey
Henderson
(1979-2003)
535
308
365
21. Eddie
Mathews
(1952-1968)
450
333
362
22. Jimmie
Foxx
(1925-1945)
435
325
353
23. Joe
DiMaggio
(1936-1951)
387
325
341
24. Sam
Crawford
(1899-1917)
446
303
339
25. Carl
Yastrzemski
(1961-1983)
488
286
337
The only players on the list who are not in the Hall of Fame are Barry
Bonds, Pete Rose and Rickey Henderson.
Take a close look at the names on the
list. Most of them will draw very little argument from fans
of the game - but a few of them might.
Eddie Collins, Nap Lajoie and Sam Crawford (all of whom played early
in the 20th century) are probably not as well known as most others
on the list. And the presence
of Pete Rose and Rickey Henderson so high on the list may raise some
eyebrows. Just keep in mind
for the present that this list is about as objective a list as is possible
using the numbers that the players put together during their
careers. And it is based on
a careful combination of a player’s core value (10 best seasons) balanced
against career longevity.
Note the large gap in points (26) between Lou Gehrig at #13 and Joe
Morgan at #14. This would seem
to imply that there is a SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between the top thirteen
players on the list and the bottom
twelve. I am inclined to say
that this establishes that there have
been only thirteen megastars among the position players of the
20th century.
Barry Bonds has a good chance to pass Ty Cobb as the #2 position player
of all time if he has a good year in
2007. But it appears unlikely
that he will be able to overtake the Babe as the greatest position player
of all time. (I should note
that Ruth’s CWS of 756 includes 102 win shares as a
pitcher.)
Joe DiMaggio is the only player on the list with less than 400 career
win shares. I think this indicates
rather well the impact he had in a relatively brief
career.
Finally, note the relative balance in the group: twelve played primarily
before 1950, and eleven played in the second half of the century while Ted
Williams and Stan Musial essentially bridged the mid-century
mark. And note that Musial and
Williams at 435 and 434 NEWS respectively are in a virtual
dead-heat.
Here is the list of the 25 starting pitchers who had the best careers
during the 20th century – based strictly on the numbers they
put together in the major leagues.
CWS
CV
NEWS
1. Walter
Johnson
(1907-1927)
560
380
425
2. Pete
Alexander
(1911-1930)
476
331
367
3. Christy
Mathewson
(1900-1916)
426
335
358
4. Lefty
Grove
(1925-1941)
391
301
324
5. Roger
Clemens
(1984-
)
432
260
303
6. Warren
Spahn
(1942-1965)
412
259
297
7. Tom
Seaver
(1967-1986)
388
255
288
8. Eddie
Plank
(1901-1917)
361
259
285
9. Greg
Maddux
(1986-
)
383
246
280
10. Gaylord
Perry
(1962-1983)
369
243
275
11. Bob
Gibson
(1959-1975)
317
258
273
12. Mordecai
Brown
(1903-1916)
296
264
272
13. Steve
Carlton
(1965-1988)
366
240
272
14. Phil
Niekro
(1964-1987)
374
235
270
15. Joe
McGinnity
(1899-1908)
269
269
269
16. Robin
Roberts
(1948-1966)
339
246
269
17. Jim
Palmer
(1965-1984)
312
252
267
18. Vic
Willis
(1898-1910)
293
257
266
19. Carl
Hubbell
(1928-1943)
305
248
262
20. Ed
Walsh
(1904-1917)
265
259
261
21. Fergie
Jenkins
(1965-1983)
323
233
256
22. Bob
Feller
(1936-1956)
292
239
252
23. Randy
Johnson
(1988-
)
305
230
249
24. Bert
Blyleven
(1970-1992)
339
218
248
25. Wilbur
Cooper
(1912-1926)
266
239
246
Every one of these pitchers is in the Hall of Fame except the three
active pitchers (Clemens, Maddux and Johnson) and the last two: Bert Blyleven
and Wilbur Cooper.
I should point out that Cy Young (1890-1911) is not included on this
list because he spent about half of his career pitching in the
19th century. His
NEWS score would have been at the top of the
list.
Once again, serious fans will recognize most of the pitchers on this
list. But how many will be familiar
with Eddie Plank, Joe McGinnity, Mordecai Brown, Vic Willis and Ed Walsh
– even though they are all in the Hall of
Fame? And what are Bert Blyleven
and Wilbur Cooper, non-Hall of Famers, doing on this
list? One of the real rewards
in looking at the numbers objectively is that sometimes we do come up with
a surprise or two. I should
point out that Bert Blyleven is the only pitcher who has accumulated 300
career win shares (and has been eligible for election to the Hall) who is
not in the Hall of Fame.
Note the balance in this list as
well. Twelve of these pitchers
played the bulk of their careers before 1950 and twelve toiled mainly in
the second half of the century while Warren Spahn bridged the two halves
of the century. Roger Clemens,
Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson were still active during the 2006 season and
so could improve on their standing if they play in 2007.
In subsequent chapters,
I will use the NEWS concept to examine the career numbers of all of the great
players (including a number of current
players). In doing so, I will comment on those players who should
be in the Hall of Fame as well as on those who may not deserve to be
there.
Michael Hoban, Ph.D. is Professor
Emeritus (mathematics) of the City University of New
York. Professor Hoban
has been a baseball fan for over 60 years and a serious baseball analyst
for the past ten years (he is a member of SABR - Society for American Baseball
Research). He has previously
written two books devoted to the task of ranking players.
1.
Baseball’s Complete Players
(McFarland:
2000) was an attempt to put the numbers together (both offensive and defensive)
to see who were baseball’s best all-around players at each
position.
2.
Fielder’s Choice: Baseball’s Best Shortstops
(Booklocker: 2003) was an attempt to rank the shortstops by defensive
skills and then by overall excellence.
