Randy Johnson had an absolutely insane career. He basically had two hall of fame careers, one before age 35 and one 35 and after. Any one of those alone would have been enough to get him into the hall of fame, taken together makes him one of the best pitchers of all time.
rubidium · 16h ago
The overlap of statisticians and baseball fans is high (anecdotal).
Hypothesis 1: statisticians love good data sources, and with its many games, innings, and types of hits / pitches it’s a great source.
Hypothesis 2: makes you seem more interesting at dinner parties
hypothesis 3: a natural overlap of preferences
mitchbob · 1d ago
Good to see Barry Bonds on top. An eye-opening Chart Party episode showed how ridiculously great he was:
He was also a cheater, taking bespoke steroid cocktails, so there's that.
jghn · 17h ago
I mean, as long as we're going to pretend that players weren't chemically enhanced as far back as the 60s (if not further), then sure? From steroids to amphetamines, it was far from uncommon.
jgalt212 · 16h ago
Amphetamines aren't even in the same league as steroids.
jghn · 16h ago
Not necessarily true. This was discussed ad nauseum in the early aughts.2 bits that are less obvious: 1) the most challenging aspect is maintaining energy throughout a long season. Drugs that help with that are useful. 2) pitchers were believed to benefit more from steroids than batters but batters drew the most attention.
jgalt212 · 6h ago
Statistical outlier analysis of different time periods would help settle this matter. My theory is that amphetamines raise all boats by roughly similar and less dramatic amounts, and thus are less detrimental to the game.
jghn · 6h ago
There is also the assumption that players weren't taking steroids until much later than it likely started to occur. We know that athletes were experimenting with steroids going way back, at least the 40s & 50s.
Further, having the discussion of "steroids" being centered around *steroids* is a bit of an oversimplification as by and large the state of the art had moved on by the heyday of Bonds/McGuire/Sosa. Nevertheless, the focus was always on the chemicals that made players big & strong, meanwhile the ones that helped to *preserve* muscle and/or enhance recovery speed were more impactful.
And even then, simply looking at things like power outliers over time isn't useful. State of the art in terms of play style changed over time. For instance there have been eras where players were intentionally hitting for contact and eras where players were intentionally hitting for power.
Or, one can just relax in the knowledge that players have been cheating, chemically or otherwise, from time immemorial, and that it's impossible to retroactively sort out. So if we compare players relative to their peers and then use that to compare across eras we can get a better sense. But it's folly to read too much into all of this.
jgalt212 · 5h ago
> Or, one can just relax in the knowledge that players have been cheating, chemically or otherwise, from time immemorial, and that it's impossible to retroactively sort out. So if we compare players relative to their peers and then use that to compare across eras we can get a better sense. But it's folly to read too much into all of this.
That's just way too hand-wavy for me. Not all crimes should be categorized as misdemeanors. We have misdemeanors and felonies for a reason.
jghn · 4h ago
Ok. Then it's on people in your camp to a) quantify the impact of *specific* forms of cheating, b) ensuring that you're not painting with too fine nor too broad a brush.
For instance, it was understood by those in the uhhh let's call it "sports nutrition" circles at the time that as a class pitchers were benefiting more overall than batters from the chemical enhancement options of that era. But yet the focus was on the home run hitter outliers. Why?
And let's also not forget that the poster children of the anti-steroid brigade are players who would have likely already been all time greats. Anyone who thinks that a Nobody became a HoFer is deluding themselves. Further: who had more to gain? The already great talent, or the marginal AAAA player who was just looking for an edge to make a team out of spring training?
My point here is that views like you're espousing are too black & white, and too narrowly applied. There's *way* too much noise to sort it all out. None of the household names of "the steroid era" were doing anything different than most of the other players. They were just already great.
jgalt212 · 2h ago
> Ok. Then it's on people in your camp to a) quantify the impact of specific forms of cheating, b) ensuring that you're not painting with too fine nor too broad a brush.
That's exactly what I proposed above. I didn't say I was right. I proposed a methodology to say that I'm right (or wrong).
> Statistical outlier analysis of different time periods would help settle this matter.
jghn · 2h ago
Sure, but it doesn't really. Or at least I don't see how it's possible to do it correctly.
Such an analysis would need to: a) prove that such outliers are caused by cheating, b) prove *which* form of cheating led to those outliers, c) prove that each individual outlier *was* taking part in that form of cheating, etc. And even then all that manages to capture are outliers. It doesn't capture the hordes of players who weren't outliers, rather they were only in the league because they were using whatever form of cheating to help make the cut.
In other words, the strong anti-cheating stances when applied to historical players is just as handwavey as the let it go philosophy I espoused earlier.
jleyank · 2d ago
These kinds of analyses were done back in the 70's and 80's as I recall (Linear Weights, other SABR-published decade corrections, ...). But I guess if you wait long enough you can republish?
PaulHoule · 2d ago
People can do more complex analysis now that we have more computational power, for one thing.
monster_truck · 17h ago
Nothing done in this paper requires more than a simple calculator
deeg · 14h ago
I am surprised at how low Nolan Ryan is, given how good he was and how long he played (27 years!). I guess he wasn't as good as I thought.
NaOH · 17h ago
For those interested in details, there's more information at one of the author's sites than this article which links a paywalled paper.
I'm not sure summing up career WAR is the best way to rank players, though. It favors guys who played a long time, like Blyleven who played 22 seasons. Sandy Koufax played half as long but was undoubtedly better at his peak. Who was really "better" overall? You probably want some metric that combines career totals and peak production, but ultimately there is no universal way to come up with one definitive ranking, so we will debate it forever.
NaOH · 15h ago
This edit was added after my initial reply:
>...but ultimately there is no universal way to come up with one definitive ranking, so we will debate it forever.
WAR is a universal way to come up with a definitive ranking. It's a framework for measuring player contributions that is applied equally to all players. That's not to say it is the universal way, but the beauty of WAR is that the framework can be re-created to value or devalue player contributions as one sees fit and then use those criteria to measure all player contributions.
That's why the authors of this paper cite the two most common WAR frameworks (bWAR and fWAR). And it's why they've created their own version which incorporates a measure of the available talent pool at the time of each player's career.
NaOH · 16h ago
>You probably want some metric that combines career totals and peak production.
How does WAR miss this goal? It credits year-to-year player contributions and gives more credit for better seasonal performances. Longevity alone doesn't ensure a higher WAR total since a negative WAR valuation is possible (and common).
streptomycin · 15h ago
Well there's infinite ways to combine peak and career totals, and "10 years of 1 WAR is equal to 1 year of 10 WAR" is certainly one of them.
vondur · 16h ago
Ha. I remember him being called Bert “be home” Blyleven.
poink · 16h ago
Wade Boggs is one of my favorite players, but better than Mike Trout?!
NaOH · 15h ago
Better is not what's being measured. The measure is contributions to wins. Boggs, being a good/great player contributed more by virtue of having played well for more games.
Think of it in terms of HN:
Let's say you and I both make the same number of comments and submissions per year. For 7 years each of your comments and submissions gets 100 karma. For 20 years each of mine gets 75 karma. On a per-comment/submission basis you contributed more, but I contributed more in my HN career.
snapetom · 16h ago
Bonds and Clemens should be excluded.
loloquwowndueo · 16h ago
Explain why for those who don’t know. Thanks :)
jayemar · 3h ago
I'm assuming it's because both are presumed to have used steroids, which is the reason that neither are in the hall of fame.
Hypothesis 1: statisticians love good data sources, and with its many games, innings, and types of hits / pitches it’s a great source.
Hypothesis 2: makes you seem more interesting at dinner parties
hypothesis 3: a natural overlap of preferences
https://youtu.be/JwMfT2cZGHg?si=ETq2PbMVglFP5LFb
Further, having the discussion of "steroids" being centered around *steroids* is a bit of an oversimplification as by and large the state of the art had moved on by the heyday of Bonds/McGuire/Sosa. Nevertheless, the focus was always on the chemicals that made players big & strong, meanwhile the ones that helped to *preserve* muscle and/or enhance recovery speed were more impactful.
And even then, simply looking at things like power outliers over time isn't useful. State of the art in terms of play style changed over time. For instance there have been eras where players were intentionally hitting for contact and eras where players were intentionally hitting for power.
Or, one can just relax in the knowledge that players have been cheating, chemically or otherwise, from time immemorial, and that it's impossible to retroactively sort out. So if we compare players relative to their peers and then use that to compare across eras we can get a better sense. But it's folly to read too much into all of this.
That's just way too hand-wavy for me. Not all crimes should be categorized as misdemeanors. We have misdemeanors and felonies for a reason.
For instance, it was understood by those in the uhhh let's call it "sports nutrition" circles at the time that as a class pitchers were benefiting more overall than batters from the chemical enhancement options of that era. But yet the focus was on the home run hitter outliers. Why?
And let's also not forget that the poster children of the anti-steroid brigade are players who would have likely already been all time greats. Anyone who thinks that a Nobody became a HoFer is deluding themselves. Further: who had more to gain? The already great talent, or the marginal AAAA player who was just looking for an edge to make a team out of spring training?
My point here is that views like you're espousing are too black & white, and too narrowly applied. There's *way* too much noise to sort it all out. None of the household names of "the steroid era" were doing anything different than most of the other players. They were just already great.
That's exactly what I proposed above. I didn't say I was right. I proposed a methodology to say that I'm right (or wrong).
> Statistical outlier analysis of different time periods would help settle this matter.
Such an analysis would need to: a) prove that such outliers are caused by cheating, b) prove *which* form of cheating led to those outliers, c) prove that each individual outlier *was* taking part in that form of cheating, etc. And even then all that manages to capture are outliers. It doesn't capture the hordes of players who weren't outliers, rather they were only in the league because they were using whatever form of cheating to help make the cut.
In other words, the strong anti-cheating stances when applied to historical players is just as handwavey as the let it go philosophy I espoused earlier.
https://eckeraadjustment.web.illinois.edu
This was a guy who took 14 ballots to get in the Hall of Fame.
I'm not sure summing up career WAR is the best way to rank players, though. It favors guys who played a long time, like Blyleven who played 22 seasons. Sandy Koufax played half as long but was undoubtedly better at his peak. Who was really "better" overall? You probably want some metric that combines career totals and peak production, but ultimately there is no universal way to come up with one definitive ranking, so we will debate it forever.
>...but ultimately there is no universal way to come up with one definitive ranking, so we will debate it forever.
WAR is a universal way to come up with a definitive ranking. It's a framework for measuring player contributions that is applied equally to all players. That's not to say it is the universal way, but the beauty of WAR is that the framework can be re-created to value or devalue player contributions as one sees fit and then use those criteria to measure all player contributions.
That's why the authors of this paper cite the two most common WAR frameworks (bWAR and fWAR). And it's why they've created their own version which incorporates a measure of the available talent pool at the time of each player's career.
How does WAR miss this goal? It credits year-to-year player contributions and gives more credit for better seasonal performances. Longevity alone doesn't ensure a higher WAR total since a negative WAR valuation is possible (and common).
Think of it in terms of HN:
Let's say you and I both make the same number of comments and submissions per year. For 7 years each of your comments and submissions gets 100 karma. For 20 years each of mine gets 75 karma. On a per-comment/submission basis you contributed more, but I contributed more in my HN career.