Username:	Password:

Remember me

Forgot your username/password?

Print Email

Home>Articles

Win Shares and Loss Shares for the 15 First Basemen (Part 2)

By Bill James

January 25, 2010

9. Mark Teixeira

Teixeira, of course, is only half-way through his career, and this is stiff competition, a list of really good players. We could give him an extra game or two on the theory that his defense is actually better than the way we have evaluated it, but that wouldn’t change where he ranks on this list as of right now.

Year	Team	Age	G	AB	HR	RBI	AVG	SLG	OBA	OPS	B WS	B LS	F WS	F LS	T WS	T LS	Pct
2003	Rangers	23	146	529	26	84	.259	.480	.331	.811	11	12	1	4	12	16	.430
2004	Rangers	24	145	545	38	112	.281	.560	.370	.929	15	7	3	3	19	10	.653
2005	Rangers	25	162	644	43	144	.301	.575	.379	.954	21	5	3	4	25	9	.738
2006	Rangers	26	162	628	33	110	.282	.514	.371	.885	17	9	4	4	21	13	.615
2007	Rangers	27	78	286	13	49	.297	.524	.397	.921	8	4	1	2	9	6	.605
2007	Braves	27	54	208	17	56	.317	.515	.404	1.019	8	0	1	1	10	1	.938
2008	Braves	28	103	381	20	78	.283	.512	.390	.902	12	4	2	2	14	7	.681
2008	Angels	28	54	193	13	43	.358	.632	.449	1.081	9	-2	1	1	10	-1	1.078
2009	Yankees	29	156	609	39	122	.292	.585	.383	.968	21	4	2	3	24	7	.773

											123	43	19	23	143	67	.681
												.739		.454		.681

8. Lee May

As a hitter Lee May was very comparable to Dick Stuart—a player who hit in the mid-.260s with a terrible strikeout/walk ratio, but real power. He ranks higher than Stuart because, while his abilities in the field were limited, his effort was much better than Stuart’s, and he was more consistent with the bat. He hung around a long time because he was a respected player, but from 1974 on he really wasn’t helping his team a lot.

Year	Team	Age	G	AB	HR	RBI	AVG	SLG	OBA	OPS	B WS	B LS	F WS	F LS	T WS	T LS	Pct
1965	Reds	22	5	4	0	0	.000	.000	.000	.000	0	0	0	0	0	0	.000
1966	Reds	23	25	75	2	10	.333	.507	.333	.840	2	1	0	1	2	2	.516
1967	Reds	24	127	438	12	57	.265	.422	.308	.730	8	11	3	3	12	13	.471
1968	Reds	25	146	559	22	80	.290	.469	.337	.805	14	9	3	4	17	14	.552
1969	Reds	26	158	607	38	110	.278	.529	.331	.860	18	7	2	5	21	13	.622
1970	Reds	27	153	605	34	94	.253	.484	.297	.782	12	15	4	5	16	20	.442
1971	Reds	28	147	553	39	98	.278	.532	.332	.864	19	4	3	5	22	9	.715
1972	Astros	29	148	592	29	98	.284	.490	.343	.833	17	8	3	5	19	12	.613
1973	Astros	30	148	545	28	105	.270	.479	.310	.789	14	9	3	4	17	13	.561
1974	Astros	31	152	556	24	85	.268	.444	.294	.738	13	11	3	5	16	16	.491
1975	Orioles	32	146	580	20	99	.262	.424	.308	.732	13	12	3	5	17	17	.504
1976	Orioles	33	148	530	25	109	.258	.447	.312	.759	15	8	2	4	17	12	.584
1977	Orioles	34	150	585	27	99	.253	.426	.296	.722	12	14	3	4	15	18	.452
1978	Orioles	35	148	556	25	80	.246	.414	.286	.700	12	13	0	4	12	17	.420
1979	Orioles	36	124	456	19	69	.254	.412	.297	.709	8	13	0	3	8	16	.332
1980	Orioles	37	78	222	7	31	.243	.401	.289	.690	4	7	0	2	4	8	.309
1981	Royals	38	26	55	0	8	.291	.345	.328	.673	1	1	0	0	1	2	.399
1982	Royals	39	42	91	3	12	.308	.505	.393	.898	4	0	0	1	4	1	.822

											184	143	34	59	218	202	.519
												.564		.363		.519

7. Mo Vaughn

In the same way that Richie Sexson at home plate brought back powerful memories of Dave Kingman, Mo Vaughn at first base in a Red Sox uniform looked for all the world like George Scott. However, while Scott was always regarded as a glove wonder, Vaughn was awkward and mistake prone. He could hit, though. ..won an MVP Award in 1996, and actually got better (with the bat) after that. Reportedly he is now doing good work restoring and refurbishing inner-city housing.

Year	Team	Age	G	AB	HR	RBI	AVG	SLG	OBA	OPS	B WS	B LS	F WS	F LS	T WS	T LS	Pct
1991	Red Sox	23	74	219	4	32	.260	.370	.339	.709	4	5	1	2	5	7	.416
1992	Red Sox	24	113	355	13	57	.234	.400	.326	.726	7	8	2	3	9	12	.431
1993	Red Sox	25	152	539	29	101	.297	.525	.390	.915	16	6	3	4	19	10	.642
1994	Red Sox	26	111	394	26	82	.310	.576	.408	.984	13	3	1	3	14	6	.684
1995	Red Sox	27	140	550	39	126	.300	.575	.388	.963	18	5	3	4	21	9	.700
1996	Red Sox	28	161	635	44	143	.326	.583	.420	1.003	21	5	1	4	22	9	.717
1997	Red Sox	29	141	527	35	96	.315	.560	.420	.980	20	1	1	5	21	6	.773
1998	Red Sox	30	154	609	40	115	.337	.591	.402	.993	22	2	2	4	25	5	.819
1999	Angels	31	139	524	33	108	.281	.508	.358	.866	14	8	1	3	15	11	.586
2000	Angels	32	161	614	36	117	.272	.498	.365	.864	16	10	1	5	17	15	.522
2002	Mets	34	139	487	26	72	.259	.456	.349	.805	13	8	1	4	14	12	.531
2003	Mets	35	27	79	3	15	.190	.329	.323	.652	1	2	0	1	1	3	.286

											164	65	17	41	181	106	.630
												.717		.290		.630

6. Steve Garvey

Working our way up the list, Garvey is the first player we come to who could be regarded as a viable Hall of Fame candidate. The standards I use are 300 Win Shares or 100 more Win Shares than Loss Shares. Garvey just misses on both tests, with 291 Win Shares and +92.

Year	Team	Age	G	AB	HR	RBI	AVG	SLG	OBA	OPS	B WS	B LS	F WS	F LS	T WS	T LS	Pct
1969	Dodgers	20	3	3	0	0	.333	.333	.333	.667	0	0	0	0	0	0	.521
1970	Dodgers	21	34	93	1	6	.269	.355	.310	.665	2	2	1	0	3	2	.516
1971	Dodgers	22	81	225	7	26	.227	.382	.290	.673	4	6	3	1	7	7	.516
1972	Dodgers	23	96	294	9	30	.269	.422	.312	.734	7	5	3	2	10	7	.588
1973	Dodgers	24	114	349	8	50	.304	.438	.328	.766	8	6	2	2	11	7	.590
1974	Dodgers	25	156	642	21	111	.312	.469	.342	.811	21	5	5	4	26	9	.748
1975	Dodgers	26	160	659	18	95	.319	.476	.351	.827	21	5	5	3	26	9	.750
1976	Dodgers	27	162	631	13	80	.317	.450	.363	.813	19	7	6	3	25	10	.715
1977	Dodgers	28	162	646	33	115	.297	.498	.335	.834	17	9	5	4	23	13	.638
1978	Dodgers	29	162	639	21	113	.316	.499	.353	.852	21	5	5	5	26	10	.719
1979	Dodgers	30	162	648	28	110	.315	.497	.351	.848	18	9	4	5	21	14	.597
1980	Dodgers	31	163	658	26	106	.304	.467	.341	.808	19	8	4	5	23	14	.624
1981	Dodgers	32	110	431	10	64	.283	.411	.322	.732	11	7	3	3	14	10	.572
1982	Dodgers	33	162	625	16	86	.282	.418	.301	.718	14	12	5	4	19	16	.535
1983	Padres	34	100	388	14	59	.294	.459	.344	.802	10	6	2	3	12	9	.571
1984	Padres	35	161	617	8	86	.284	.373	.307	.680	11	15	4	4	15	20	.435
1985	Padres	36	162	654	17	81	.281	.430	.318	.748	14	14	5	5	19	18	.506
1986	Padres	37	155	557	21	81	.255	.408	.284	.692	10	14	2	5	11	19	.372
1987	Padres	38	27	76	1	9	.211	.276	.231	.507	0	3	0	1	1	4	.132

											228	141	63	58	291	199	.594
												.617		.522		.594

5. Carlos Delgado

If judged by the standards of history, Carlos Delgado appears to have done enough to make him a Hall of Fame Player. I am choosing my words carefully. The standards of history, when it comes to the Hall of Fame, are almost certainly going to have to change, due to the lag effects of expansion. As you have more players, you have more players who dominate. We have twice as many teams now as we did in the 1950s, thus twice as many dominant players. We are only just now reaching the point at which this matters. Delgado has certainly been as dominant a player as Orlando Cepeda, for example, and has had as many dominant years than Willie McCovey—even if you adjust the numbers for the offensive context. If you apply the Cepeda/McCovey/Bill Terry/Jim Bottomley standard to Delgado, Delgado certainly goes in.

But then, so would some other players, and then, too, there is the issue of steroids; Delgado’s big, big numbers were compiled in the era of big, big players. I think ultimately that doesn’t matter, but it matters for the next 25 or 30 years. I don’t expect to live long enough to see Carlos Delgado go into the Hall of Fame—but you might.

Year	Team	Age	G	AB	HR	RBI	AVG	SLG	OBA	OPS	B WS	B LS	F WS	F LS	T WS	T LS	Pct
1993	Blue Jays	21	2	1	0	0	.000	.000	.500	.500	0	0	0	0	0	0	.651
1994	Blue Jays	22	43	130	9	24	.215	.438	.352	.791	3	3	0	1	3	4	.420
1995	Blue Jays	23	37	91	3	11	.165	.297	.212	.509	0	4	0	1	1	5	.116
1996	Blue Jays	24	138	488	25	92	.270	.490	.353	.843	11	10	0	3	12	12	.484
1997	Blue Jays	25	153	519	30	91	.262	.528	.350	.878	15	7	2	3	17	11	.615
1998	Blue Jays	26	142	530	38	115	.292	.592	.385	.978	18	3	3	3	21	6	.773
1999	Blue Jays	27	152	573	44	134	.272	.571	.377	.948	18	7	3	4	20	10	.664
2000	Blue Jays	28	162	569	41	137	.344	.664	.470	1.134	25	-3	2	4	27	1	.968
2001	Blue Jays	29	162	574	39	102	.279	.540	.408	.948	19	4	3	4	22	8	.737
2002	Blue Jays	30	143	505	33	108	.277	.549	.406	.955	19	2	2	3	21	6	.786
2003	Blue Jays	31	161	570	42	145	.302	.593	.426	1.019	22	1	3	4	25	5	.840
2004	Blue Jays	32	128	458	32	99	.269	.535	.372	.907	13	7	3	2	16	9	.635
2005	Marlins	33	144	521	33	115	.301	.582	.399	.981	21	1	2	4	23	5	.807
2006	Mets	34	144	524	38	114	.261	.548	.361	.909	16	7	2	4	18	10	.638
2007	Mets	35	139	538	24	87	.258	.448	.333	.781	12	11	3	3	16	13	.538
2008	Mets	36	159	598	38	115	.271	.518	.353	.871	17	8	3	3	20	11	.645
2009	Mets	37	26	94	4	23	.298	.521	.393	.914	3	1	0	1	4	1	.747

											234	73	31	45	265	118	.692
												.762		.411		.692

4. Jason Giambi

Like Delgado, a Hall of Fame player if judged by historic norms. At his prime, ten years ago, Giambi was so good that we estimate his “effective winning percentage”, as a player, at greater than 1.000. There aren’t many of those guys.

Year	Team	Age	G	AB	HR	RBI	AVG	SLG	OBA	OPS	B WS	B LS	F WS	F LS	T WS	T LS	Pct
1995	A's	24	54	176	6	25	.256	.398	.364	.761	5	3	1	1	5	4	.551
1996	A's	25	140	536	20	79	.291	.481	.355	.836	12	10	2	3	14	13	.515
1997	A's	26	142	519	20	81	.293	.495	.362	.857	13	8	0	4	14	12	.528
1998	A's	27	153	562	27	110	.295	.489	.384	.873	18	6	2	5	19	11	.642
1999	A's	28	158	575	33	123	.315	.553	.422	.975	21	2	2	4	23	6	.791
2000	A's	29	152	510	43	137	.333	.647	.476	1.123	26	-6	2	3	28	-3	1.098
2001	A's	30	154	520	38	120	.342	.660	.477	1.137	27	-7	4	3	31	-4	1.164
2002	Yankees	31	155	560	41	122	.314	.598	.435	1.034	24	-1	2	3	27	2	.943
2003	Yankees	32	156	535	41	107	.250	.527	.412	.939	21	2	2	3	23	6	.799
2004	Yankees	33	80	264	12	40	.208	.379	.342	.720	6	7	1	2	6	8	.437
2005	Yankees	34	139	417	32	87	.271	.535	.440	.975	17	0	1	3	18	3	.859
2006	Yankees	35	139	446	37	113	.253	.558	.413	.971	18	2	0	3	18	5	.773
2007	Yankees	36	83	254	14	39	.236	.433	.356	.789	6	5	0	2	6	7	.486
2008	Yankees	37	145	458	32	96	.247	.502	.373	.875	14	6	1	4	16	10	.617
2009	A's	38	83	269	11	40	.193	.364	.332	.696	5	7	1	2	6	9	.390
2009	Rockies	38	19	24	2	11	.292	.583	.452	1.035	1	0	0	0	1	0	.967

											235	45	22	45	257	90	.741
												.839		.328		.741

3. Norm Cash

Norm Cash is one of those players, like Gene Tenace and Dwight Evans and Darrell Evans, who scores by modern analytical methods as a much better player than anyone ever thought he was while he was active. He had the one monster season, which cast the rest of his career into a shadow. After 1962 he became a platoon player, usually sitting out against left-handers, and Retrosheet reveals that this was not a whim; he really couldn’t hit lefties. He did so much damage against right-handers, however—and in an era when runs were scarce—that he was actually a better player than many who are in the Hall of Fame. Our new defensive measures show that his defense is like his offense: he was better than people thought he was. He was a farm boy, funny and quotable, but he was always in the shadow of players like Rocky Colavito, Roger Maris and Jackie Jensen, although in reality he may have been a better player than any of those. He was always perceived as an up-and-down player, although, from 1959 through 1973, he had only one season with an effective winning percentage under .600, and that was .594. So I guess that is what I will say, when people ask me whether Jason Giambi should be in the Hall of Fame. If Norm Cash isn’t in, Jason Giambi shouldn’t be in.

Year	Team	Age	G	AB	HR	RBI	AVG	SLG	OBA	OPS	B WS	B LS	F WS	F LS	T WS	T LS	Pct
1958	White Sox	23	13	8	0	0	.250	.250	.250	.500	0	0	0	0	0	0	.279
1959	White Sox	24	58	104	4	16	.240	.375	.372	.747	3	1	0	1	4	2	.609
1960	Tigers	25	121	353	18	63	.286	.501	.402	.903	13	1	2	2	15	3	.827
1961	Tigers	26	159	535	41	132	.361	.662	.487	1.148	30	-9	4	3	34	-6	1.236
1962	Tigers	27	148	507	39	89	.243	.513	.382	.894	15	8	4	2	19	10	.650
1963	Tigers	28	147	493	26	79	.270	.471	.386	.856	16	5	3	3	19	8	.717
1964	Tigers	29	144	479	23	83	.257	.453	.351	.804	15	6	3	3	18	9	.668
1965	Tigers	30	142	467	30	82	.266	.512	.371	.883	16	4	3	3	19	7	.731
1966	Tigers	31	160	603	32	93	.279	.478	.351	.829	18	7	3	4	21	11	.663
1967	Tigers	32	152	488	22	72	.242	.430	.352	.783	16	6	3	3	19	9	.678
1968	Tigers	33	127	411	25	63	.263	.487	.329	.816	13	5	3	2	16	7	.713
1969	Tigers	34	142	483	22	74	.280	.464	.368	.831	15	5	3	3	18	8	.688
1970	Tigers	35	130	370	15	53	.259	.441	.383	.823	10	6	2	3	12	8	.594
1971	Tigers	36	135	452	32	91	.283	.531	.372	.903	19	0	2	4	21	3	.856
1972	Tigers	37	137	440	22	61	.259	.445	.338	.783	12	7	4	2	16	9	.637
1973	Tigers	38	121	363	19	40	.262	.471	.357	.828	11	4	2	2	14	6	.691
1974	Tigers	39	53	149	7	12	.228	.416	.327	.744	3	3	1	1	4	4	.501

											226	59	44	40	269	99	.732
												.793		.522		.732

2. Keith Hernandez

At the end of our study there are two players who appear to be clearly qualified for the Hall of Fame, by the standards of the past or the realistic standards of the future. Keith Hernandez was a .300 hitter (.296 career), a .400 on-base guy (.384 career), and the best defensive first baseman of his era. He didn’t last long enough to get 3,000 hits; he didn’t hit enough homers to drive in 100 runs every year, although he would usually drive in 90. It is my view that he did enough to be listed somewhere among the greatest first basemen of all time.

Year	Team	Age	G	AB	HR	RBI	AVG	SLG	OBA	OPS	B WS	B LS	F WS	F LS	T WS	T LS	Pct
1974	Cardinals	20	14	34	0	2	.294	.441	.415	.856	1	0	0	0	1	1	.720
1975	Cardinals	21	64	188	3	20	.250	.362	.309	.671	3	5	2	1	5	6	.431
1976	Cardinals	22	129	374	7	46	.289	.428	.376	.803	11	4	3	3	14	7	.654
1977	Cardinals	23	161	560	15	91	.291	.459	.379	.837	17	7	4	4	21	11	.659
1978	Cardinals	24	159	542	11	64	.255	.389	.351	.741	15	9	3	5	18	14	.571
1979	Cardinals	25	161	610	11	105	.344	.513	.417	.930	22	1	5	3	27	4	.862
1980	Cardinals	26	159	595	16	99	.321	.494	.408	.902	22	2	5	4	27	6	.816
1981	Cardinals	27	103	376	8	48	.306	.463	.401	.864	14	2	4	2	18	4	.832
1982	Cardinals	28	160	579	7	94	.299	.413	.397	.810	18	6	6	3	24	10	.716
1983	Cardinals	29	55	218	3	26	.284	.431	.352	.784	6	3	1	2	7	5	.618
	Mets	29	95	320	9	37	.306	.434	.424	.858	12	1	2	3	14	4	.781
	TOTALS		150	538	12	63	.297	.433	.396	.829
1984	Mets	30	154	550	15	94	.311	.449	.409	.859	20	2	4	3	25	5	.821
1985	Mets	31	158	593	10	91	.309	.430	.384	.814	20	4	5	3	25	7	.778
1986	Mets	32	149	551	13	83	.310	.446	.413	.859	21	1	4	3	25	5	.845
1987	Mets	33	154	587	18	89	.290	.436	.377	.813	16	8	4	4	20	12	.626
1988	Mets	34	95	348	11	55	.276	.417	.333	.750	10	5	2	3	12	8	.622
1989	Mets	35	75	215	4	19	.233	.326	.324	.649	4	5	1	2	5	7	.422
1990	Indians	36	43	130	1	8	.200	.238	.283	.521	1	5	1	1	2	6	.266

											234	71	56	49	289	120	.707
												.767		.534		.707

1. Fred McGriff

As Richie Sexson resembled Dave Kingman and Mo Vaughn evoked the memory of George Scott, Fred McGriff was regarded, as a young player, as the second coming of Willie McCovey. McCovey battled through years of foot problems to emerge with an MVP season. McGriff never had that MVP season, and, as the steroid era arrived, his numbers stayed the same, and he got pushed back in the line behind the guys who were hitting 47 homers and driving in 145 runs. Although he played everywhere, he never got to play in Colorado, where he could have hit 50 homers, or even in Fenway or Arizona, where his numbers might have been bigger than they were.

But while he never had the big seasons that McCovey had in ’69 and ’70, McGriff was more consistent. He outhit McCovey by 14 points; their on base and slugging percentages were essentially the same. He pulled up a little short of 500 homers, and well short of 3,000 hits, although he had a long career. But there are two standards I use: 300 Win Shares, and 100 more Win Shares than Loss Shares. If you clear both of those standards, eventually, you’re going to Cooperstown. McGriff is the only player in this group who cleared them both.

Year	Team	Age	G	AB	HR	RBI	AVG	SLG	OBA	OPS	B WS	B LS	F WS	F LS	T WS	T LS	Pct
1986	Blue Jays	22	3	5	0	0	.200	.200	.200	.400	0	0	0	0	0	0	.024
1987	Blue Jays	23	107	295	20	43	.247	.505	.376	.881	9	4	0	2	9	5	.645
1988	Blue Jays	24	154	536	34	82	.282	.552	.376	.928	20	3	4	3	24	6	.793
1989	Blue Jays	25	161	551	36	92	.269	.525	.399	.924	23	0	4	5	27	5	.847
1990	Blue Jays	26	153	557	35	88	.300	.530	.400	.930	22	0	4	3	26	3	.886
1991	Padres	27	153	528	31	106	.278	.494	.396	.890	19	3	3	4	23	7	.762
1992	Padres	28	152	531	35	104	.286	.556	.394	.950	20	2	3	5	23	7	.766
1993	Padres	29	83	302	18	46	.275	.497	.361	.858	9	4	1	3	9	8	.550
	Braves	29	68	255	19	55	.310	.612	.392	1.004	10	0	2	2	12	2	.866
	TOTALS		151	557	37	101	.291	.549	.375	.924
1994	Braves	30	113	424	34	94	.318	.623	.389	1.012	17	0	3	3	19	3	.861
1995	Braves	31	144	528	27	93	.280	.489	.361	.850	13	10	5	2	18	12	.612
1996	Braves	32	159	617	28	107	.295	.494	.365	.859	16	10	5	3	20	13	.614
1997	Braves	33	152	564	22	97	.277	.441	.356	.797	14	11	3	4	17	15	.533
1998	Devil Rays	34	151	564	19	81	.284	.443	.371	.815	13	10	2	4	15	14	.531
1999	Devil Rays	35	144	529	32	104	.310	.552	.405	.957	17	4	1	4	18	8	.694
2000	Devil Rays	36	158	566	27	106	.277	.452	.373	.826	14	10	1	5	15	15	.510
2001	Devil Rays	37	97	343	19	61	.318	.536	.387	.923	11	2	1	2	12	5	.711
	Cubs	37	49	170	12	41	.282	.559	.383	.942	6	2	0	1	6	3	.677
	TOTALS		146	513	31	102	.306	.544	.386	.930
2002	Cubs	38	146	523	30	103	.273	.505	.353	.858	15	7	1	4	16	11	.595
2003	Dodgers	39	86	297	13	40	.249	.428	.322	.750	6	6	1	2	8	8	.478
2004	Devil Rays	40	27	72	2	7	.181	.306	.272	.577	1	3	0	0	1	3	.204

											275	92	44	60	319	152	.677
												.750		.420		.677

COMMENTS (6 Comments, most recent shown first)

kcale
Bill, in regard to the HOF benchmarks of 300 wins and 100 W-L, I think you hit the nail on the head. There are two important considerations about a player... value and performance, although I like win% better than W-L as the measure of performance. In the publication I sent you a few weeks ago I used this same principle to rate players. I just developed the performance ratings a different way as a derivative analysis of win shares. Could you post the article on the site to get reaction?

11:46 AM Feb 22nd

jsc1973
Delgado's biggest problem, as a Hall of Fame candidate, is that most of his great seasons were in Toronto, which since 1993 is sort of like playing in Siberia. When he finally got to a big media market, he played for a Mets team that is only going to be remembered for choking. I think he's clearly a Hall of Famer, and I also think his stats are misleading, because Toronto made him rot in the minor leagues or on the bench for about four years before giving him a shot. Because of that, he might be an old man by the time he makes it.

Hernandez is a HOF-caliber player, but he's never going to make it. He just doesn't have the raw statistics that impress the kind of voters who watched Andre Dawson and Tim Raines play on the same team for years, and somehow think Dawson was better.

Crime Dog is the best of the bunch. I think he'll be elected after about 10-12 years on the ballot.
12:20 PM Feb 18th

kcale
Bill, the one thing that jumps out is that there are some very high negative loss shares. Is this an issue when rating the elite players, and the poorer players as well?
10:25 AM Jan 29th

Trailbzr
Bill, maybe I missed something in these articles, but in the WS book, Norm Cash has about 280 batting WS (226 above) and Keith Hernandez 277 (234). Did creating Loss Shares require adjusting batting totals down to create more room for LS?
7:44 PM Jan 26th

cderosa
Thanks for the interesting series--I'm still digesting the system.

One thing that strikes me about the rendering of loss shares, is how hard it is, for me at least, to view a guy with big slugging numbers as a losing player. When I got turned on to sabermetrics in the '80s, I really internalized a slugger-over-glove man mentality, that although eroded by more recent advances in fielding measures, is still hard to re-adjust into proper perspective.

I'm looking forward to seeing how Olerud's '93 campaign scores compared to Delgado's 2000, in the contest for the best season ever put up by a Toronto first sacker.

11:31 AM Jan 26th

CharlesSaeger
Now that all is said and done, how would you evaluate the big Fernandez/Alomar/McGriff/Carter trade now?
10:24 AM Jan 26th

Win Shares and Loss Shares for the 15 First Basemen (Part 2)

COMMENTS (6 Comments, most recent shown first)

Leave a comment

Report inappropriate comment


Type of Abuse:
Comments: