How do you pick players?
Players are selected based on their Career WAR with a given teams. There must be at leats three men covering each position, and each of them must qualify at that position.
So... If you hate WAR as a stat, one of two things will happen: Either you'll hate what I'm doing here - OR - upon seeing the great results that WAR gives, you might revise your opinion about it! :)
How do you treat steroids?
Since players are seleceted based on WAR, which rates players relative to the League Average, much of the inflated offenses end up compensated for. Beyond that, I give no consideration to steroids use.
Why no minimum number of years?
Back when I relied more heavily on *OPS+, a rate stat, I needed to have a minimum number of years (I assumed 5) on the teams to avoid having to comapre a 1 or 2 year mercenary with a great *OPS+ to a guy who played 10 good years with a lower *OPS+. Because the players career is summed up in terms of overall WINS i no longer need to do that. If one player's 2 great years were worth more wins than another player's 10 good one's or someone else's 20 mediocre ones? Then he gets the pick. Otherwise, not. WAR gives a perfectly objective way of determinign if one player's peak value can in fact outwieght a lessser player's career value.
You’re crazy! How can you pick [this guy] and not [that guy]?!
Players are selected based on maximizing the teams WAR. If you don;t like WAR, you're bound to take issue with some of my results. Overall I think even the worst of the teams are still broadly defensible. But you are free to have your own opinion. The more I see of WAR, the more I like it.
BACK
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The Candy Maldonado Rule
The Candy Maldonado Rule is what I call it when a formula that seems to make sense gives a result that seems completely absurd on it's face. When that happens you can do one of two things: Throw out the result and accept that the formula is garbage or, at best, seriously flawed. -OR- You can blindly accept the result and keep using the formula.
OK, there's a third option: Figure out WHY you got the goofy result, but that essentially the same thing as option one, assume you then tweak the formula. After all: If you continuously tweak the formula until its gives you an answer that you already "know" is right... well, that's no better than just picking based on your own opinion and personal feelings, is it?
The reason I call this the "Candy Maldonado rule" is because of a conversation I was having years ago about this very thing. My point was, that is you have this formula, that you really like, but it tells you that Candy Maldonado is the greatest hitter that ever lived, it's a garbage formula. How do I know? Because Candy Maldonado can't even shine the shoes of the 100th greatest hitter of all time. How do I know THAT?
I. JUST. KNOW.
And, with all due respect to Mister Maldonado, his was just the first name that came to mind. Believe it or not, it's pretty hard to think of someone who just plain SUCKS right off the top of your head. And the first name that comes to mind when you're trying to come up with one, is usually someone who was actually pretty good at one time. And for some reason "Candy Maldonado" just popped in to my head. And he was good. Not very good, and certainly not great, but... good.
And I thought it made a really memorable name for the rule and it stuck. So for all the statistician's efforts to take subjective opinions out of the analysis of the game, the results of these formulae can not just taken blindly. Each formula must still judged against common sense. And that basically means: It better pretty much tell us what we already "know," with no more than a few surprises.
IOW: It has to pass the "Candy Maldonado rule" and not give a truly absurd result like "Candy Maldonado is the greatest hitter of all-time." Ruth, Bonds, Williams, Cobb, Hornsby, Mays, DiMaggio, Aaron or Mantle? Fine. Maybe you have a good formula. But if Candy Maldonado breaks the top ten: You don't.
And no, I can think of no formula that would reach this conclusion. It's just what I call the common sense test.
BACK
OK, there's a third option: Figure out WHY you got the goofy result, but that essentially the same thing as option one, assume you then tweak the formula. After all: If you continuously tweak the formula until its gives you an answer that you already "know" is right... well, that's no better than just picking based on your own opinion and personal feelings, is it?
The reason I call this the "Candy Maldonado rule" is because of a conversation I was having years ago about this very thing. My point was, that is you have this formula, that you really like, but it tells you that Candy Maldonado is the greatest hitter that ever lived, it's a garbage formula. How do I know? Because Candy Maldonado can't even shine the shoes of the 100th greatest hitter of all time. How do I know THAT?
I. JUST. KNOW.
And, with all due respect to Mister Maldonado, his was just the first name that came to mind. Believe it or not, it's pretty hard to think of someone who just plain SUCKS right off the top of your head. And the first name that comes to mind when you're trying to come up with one, is usually someone who was actually pretty good at one time. And for some reason "Candy Maldonado" just popped in to my head. And he was good. Not very good, and certainly not great, but... good.
And I thought it made a really memorable name for the rule and it stuck. So for all the statistician's efforts to take subjective opinions out of the analysis of the game, the results of these formulae can not just taken blindly. Each formula must still judged against common sense. And that basically means: It better pretty much tell us what we already "know," with no more than a few surprises.
IOW: It has to pass the "Candy Maldonado rule" and not give a truly absurd result like "Candy Maldonado is the greatest hitter of all-time." Ruth, Bonds, Williams, Cobb, Hornsby, Mays, DiMaggio, Aaron or Mantle? Fine. Maybe you have a good formula. But if Candy Maldonado breaks the top ten: You don't.
And no, I can think of no formula that would reach this conclusion. It's just what I call the common sense test.
BACK
Saturday, November 7, 2009
FAQ
How do you pick players?
There is no set system and readers can feel free to challenge any of my picks. I try to take a big-picture approach, considering not only their statistics but awards, black and grey ink (leading the league / finishing in the top 10 in a category) post season performance, and overall appreciation by the fans. Hall of Famers are almost always a lock, although there are exceptions. (Red Ruffing was gawd-awful in his years in Boston!) Players with retired numbers are also about 99% automatic. MVP winners are given strong preferential treatment. Cy Young’s, Rookies of the Year, All-Stars, Gold Gloves, Silver Sluggers, and other awards all guarantee a player serious consideration. Among otherwise equal players, if one played for post-season teams I might be more included to pick him, especially if he had GOOD post-seasons. But, at the same time, I also try to get players from as many different years and teams as possible, so playing for the better teams does not always help. ACTIVE PLAYERS are eligible, but must be clear choices based of what they’ve ALREADY done. NO ONE is picked for potential. In a few more years, if they become the clearly superior choice, I’ll go back and revise the team. In the meantime, I’d rather honor someone else. So while I’ll allow active players, they are given a bit more scrutiny.
And while both PEAK value and CAREER value are considered, and I try to make sure I have a little of both, there's almost no more important stat than GAMES PLAYED. True One-Season-Wonders will likely get left off, unless they’re REALLY well remembered for their one [historic] year. Thus Jim Lonborg and Mark Fydrich make the Red Sox and Tigers, but many others will get left off those teams and others. 2-3 season wonders, on the other hand, get picked rather a lot over a 10-year guy with more mediocre numbers. There’s no hard and fast rule. I just try to envision the team that I’d most like to manage (or watch play!) based on the players that qualify.
How do you treat steroids?
In general I try to ignore them. In my opinion, what Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Gary Sheffield, Manny Ramirez, Sosa, Clemens, Rodriguez, etc… have done on the field of play warrants consideration. Period. If I’ve got a choice between equal players, I might be more inclined to pick the older player, but that’s as much for my prejudice against the modern era than against steroids users, and my prejudice against the modern era has to do with WAAAY more than just steroids. But all players are considered against their era – hence my heavy weighting of Awards, Black & Grey Ink, and stats like *OPS+ and *ERA+: because the value of these things don’t change year to year! The best of any era is still the best of an era.
Why the five year minimum?
To be fair to the players that put in their time, and had many good years, so they’re not left off by a guy who came to town for a cup of coffee and had one GREAT year. It’s a way of making sure that peak value doesn’t ever outweigh career value in any truly absurd ways. Some guys get left of some teams rather regrettably – Like Michey Cochrane not being eligible for the Classic Tigers is perhaps the best (worst) example of this – but I felt like I needed to draw a line somewhere, and a five year minimum seemed to work out about 99% of the time.
Why reduce it for expansion teams?
Practical answer? If I don’t, some teams can’t even field a starting lineup, let alone a 40-man roster! Plus if they’ve been around less time, they’re bound to have fewer career / franchise players. For every Tony Gwynn (using San Diego as a four-year example), there’s a Goose Gossage, Steve Garvey or Ozzie Smith – either a hall of famer or retired number – that totally BELONGS on the team, and don’t really have anyone better to replace them, with only four years. But if a team has been around for 100+ years, there’s generally enough talent to go around. And with so many players changing teams these days, it also cuts down on the number of changes I might have to make, year to year, moving forward! LOL. Also, I don’t think that a journeyman / mercenary like Dave Kingman or Gary Sheffield should be seriously considered for storied, historic franchises. NEWER franchises, however…
Why split some teams up into two franchises?
Two reasons. First, out of fairness to the expansion teams. If these teams were to ever actually play, ANY team that had been around for 100+ years would always have a HUGE advantage over ANY team that had only been around 20 or 30. So to make the discussion at least SOMEWHAT interesting, head to head, I’ve made it so that every team has only about 50-60 years to draw from. (up to 70 for the original NL teams, but not too many 1800’s players will be considered – generally only the Hall of Famers.)
The second reason is to avoid crowding out the great players, allow some room for purely sentimental choices and still allow for some serious debate. Take a team like the Giants, with four Hall of Fame First baseman – Kelly, Terry, Mize and McCovey. By splitting them up I not only allow room for controversial Hall of Famer Kelly, who would have been (should be?) left off, but I also open up the possibility for someone like Will Clark to be considered. Likewise, consider a team like the Yankees, at Catcher for example: Berra and Dickey (both Hall of Famers) are automatic, but who’s the third? MVP and the club’s first black Player Elston Howard? Or MVP and former beloved team Captain Thurman Munson? (Both of whom have their Numbers retired!) Even as a Red Sox fan, I’d hate to leave either one of them off. In the OF they already have seven Hall of Famers: Combs, Ruth, DiMaggio, Mantle, Jackson, Winfield and Henderson. Add in #9 (retired) Roger Maris, and you’ve only got ONE SPOT left to consider Charlie Keller, Tommy Henrich, Hank Bauer, Bobby Murcer, Lou Piniella, Mickey Rivers, Bernie Williams, Paul O’Neill, etc…) So while a lot of mediocre guys might get in, typically as 3rd stringers on weak teams, so likely they’d get picked anyway, but this way they don’t get on while better players on better teams get excluded. This blog is intended to celebrate as many players as possible. (About 1200 or more by the time it's done!)
Why split at 1950?
Right now it’s just the most even way to do it. Expansion teams have between 10 and 50 years. AL Teams have 50 (Classic) and 60 (Modern) while NL teams have between 60 (modern) and 70 (classic) season to select player from. Teams like the Dodgers, Giants, Braves, Browns/Orioles, Senators/Twins and A’s. Split a little later but still right around the half century mark. Maybe after the 2019 season, if I’m still alive and doing this, I’ll move the cutoff to 1960, move some of the 1950’s players to the Classic teams, displacing some of the lesser talents there, and the AL teams will have a 60/60 split and NL Teams a 60/80 split. (With the relocated teams still having between a 65/75 to 60/80 split.)
You’re crazy! How can you pick [this guy] and not [that guy]?!
If you feel this way, please let me know! I’m a life-long Red Sox fan, who grew up in Connecticut. So I know a LOT about both the Red Sox and Yankees. And I’ve live in Michigan for about 12 years now, so I’ve learned more about the Tigers than most Tigers fans even knew. Beyond that? I’m going by research and memory. I’m not a FAN of any other team, and thus I don’t look at the players through a fan’s eyes. (But don’t worry Twins fans: Ron Davis won’t even be allowed to sell hot dogs for that team!)
BACK
There is no set system and readers can feel free to challenge any of my picks. I try to take a big-picture approach, considering not only their statistics but awards, black and grey ink (leading the league / finishing in the top 10 in a category) post season performance, and overall appreciation by the fans. Hall of Famers are almost always a lock, although there are exceptions. (Red Ruffing was gawd-awful in his years in Boston!) Players with retired numbers are also about 99% automatic. MVP winners are given strong preferential treatment. Cy Young’s, Rookies of the Year, All-Stars, Gold Gloves, Silver Sluggers, and other awards all guarantee a player serious consideration. Among otherwise equal players, if one played for post-season teams I might be more included to pick him, especially if he had GOOD post-seasons. But, at the same time, I also try to get players from as many different years and teams as possible, so playing for the better teams does not always help. ACTIVE PLAYERS are eligible, but must be clear choices based of what they’ve ALREADY done. NO ONE is picked for potential. In a few more years, if they become the clearly superior choice, I’ll go back and revise the team. In the meantime, I’d rather honor someone else. So while I’ll allow active players, they are given a bit more scrutiny.
And while both PEAK value and CAREER value are considered, and I try to make sure I have a little of both, there's almost no more important stat than GAMES PLAYED. True One-Season-Wonders will likely get left off, unless they’re REALLY well remembered for their one [historic] year. Thus Jim Lonborg and Mark Fydrich make the Red Sox and Tigers, but many others will get left off those teams and others. 2-3 season wonders, on the other hand, get picked rather a lot over a 10-year guy with more mediocre numbers. There’s no hard and fast rule. I just try to envision the team that I’d most like to manage (or watch play!) based on the players that qualify.
How do you treat steroids?
In general I try to ignore them. In my opinion, what Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Gary Sheffield, Manny Ramirez, Sosa, Clemens, Rodriguez, etc… have done on the field of play warrants consideration. Period. If I’ve got a choice between equal players, I might be more inclined to pick the older player, but that’s as much for my prejudice against the modern era than against steroids users, and my prejudice against the modern era has to do with WAAAY more than just steroids. But all players are considered against their era – hence my heavy weighting of Awards, Black & Grey Ink, and stats like *OPS+ and *ERA+: because the value of these things don’t change year to year! The best of any era is still the best of an era.
Why the five year minimum?
To be fair to the players that put in their time, and had many good years, so they’re not left off by a guy who came to town for a cup of coffee and had one GREAT year. It’s a way of making sure that peak value doesn’t ever outweigh career value in any truly absurd ways. Some guys get left of some teams rather regrettably – Like Michey Cochrane not being eligible for the Classic Tigers is perhaps the best (worst) example of this – but I felt like I needed to draw a line somewhere, and a five year minimum seemed to work out about 99% of the time.
Why reduce it for expansion teams?
Practical answer? If I don’t, some teams can’t even field a starting lineup, let alone a 40-man roster! Plus if they’ve been around less time, they’re bound to have fewer career / franchise players. For every Tony Gwynn (using San Diego as a four-year example), there’s a Goose Gossage, Steve Garvey or Ozzie Smith – either a hall of famer or retired number – that totally BELONGS on the team, and don’t really have anyone better to replace them, with only four years. But if a team has been around for 100+ years, there’s generally enough talent to go around. And with so many players changing teams these days, it also cuts down on the number of changes I might have to make, year to year, moving forward! LOL. Also, I don’t think that a journeyman / mercenary like Dave Kingman or Gary Sheffield should be seriously considered for storied, historic franchises. NEWER franchises, however…
Why split some teams up into two franchises?
Two reasons. First, out of fairness to the expansion teams. If these teams were to ever actually play, ANY team that had been around for 100+ years would always have a HUGE advantage over ANY team that had only been around 20 or 30. So to make the discussion at least SOMEWHAT interesting, head to head, I’ve made it so that every team has only about 50-60 years to draw from. (up to 70 for the original NL teams, but not too many 1800’s players will be considered – generally only the Hall of Famers.)
The second reason is to avoid crowding out the great players, allow some room for purely sentimental choices and still allow for some serious debate. Take a team like the Giants, with four Hall of Fame First baseman – Kelly, Terry, Mize and McCovey. By splitting them up I not only allow room for controversial Hall of Famer Kelly, who would have been (should be?) left off, but I also open up the possibility for someone like Will Clark to be considered. Likewise, consider a team like the Yankees, at Catcher for example: Berra and Dickey (both Hall of Famers) are automatic, but who’s the third? MVP and the club’s first black Player Elston Howard? Or MVP and former beloved team Captain Thurman Munson? (Both of whom have their Numbers retired!) Even as a Red Sox fan, I’d hate to leave either one of them off. In the OF they already have seven Hall of Famers: Combs, Ruth, DiMaggio, Mantle, Jackson, Winfield and Henderson. Add in #9 (retired) Roger Maris, and you’ve only got ONE SPOT left to consider Charlie Keller, Tommy Henrich, Hank Bauer, Bobby Murcer, Lou Piniella, Mickey Rivers, Bernie Williams, Paul O’Neill, etc…) So while a lot of mediocre guys might get in, typically as 3rd stringers on weak teams, so likely they’d get picked anyway, but this way they don’t get on while better players on better teams get excluded. This blog is intended to celebrate as many players as possible. (About 1200 or more by the time it's done!)
Why split at 1950?
Right now it’s just the most even way to do it. Expansion teams have between 10 and 50 years. AL Teams have 50 (Classic) and 60 (Modern) while NL teams have between 60 (modern) and 70 (classic) season to select player from. Teams like the Dodgers, Giants, Braves, Browns/Orioles, Senators/Twins and A’s. Split a little later but still right around the half century mark. Maybe after the 2019 season, if I’m still alive and doing this, I’ll move the cutoff to 1960, move some of the 1950’s players to the Classic teams, displacing some of the lesser talents there, and the AL teams will have a 60/60 split and NL Teams a 60/80 split. (With the relocated teams still having between a 65/75 to 60/80 split.)
You’re crazy! How can you pick [this guy] and not [that guy]?!
If you feel this way, please let me know! I’m a life-long Red Sox fan, who grew up in Connecticut. So I know a LOT about both the Red Sox and Yankees. And I’ve live in Michigan for about 12 years now, so I’ve learned more about the Tigers than most Tigers fans even knew. Beyond that? I’m going by research and memory. I’m not a FAN of any other team, and thus I don’t look at the players through a fan’s eyes. (But don’t worry Twins fans: Ron Davis won’t even be allowed to sell hot dogs for that team!)
BACK
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Color Key
Incomplete Season totals are the result of the player being either traded or acquired mid-season.
Note: If a Pitcher is shown to be the League's leader, or a Top-ten finisher, in HITS or WALKS, this indicates that he led league, or was in the top ten, in Hits or Walks per nine innings pitched. In other words, it signifies that he was one of the best in the league in this category, not one of the worst.
For PLAYERS, a 15-column statistial record is presented, including regular and post season totals.:
G = Games Played
AB = At Bats
R = Runs Scored
H = Base Hits
2B = Doubles
3B = Triples
HR = Home Runs
RBI = Runs Batted In
SB = Stole Bases
BB = Base on Balls (Walks)
BA = Batting Average (H / AB)
OBP = On-Base Percentage (H + BB + Hit by Pitch / AB + BB + Sacrifice Flies)
SLG = Slugging Percentage (Total Bases / AB)
OPS = On-Base Percentage Plus Slugging Percentage
*OPS+ = 100 x ((OBP / League OBP) + (SLG / League SLG) - 1) adjusted for park factor
For PITCHERS, a 15-column statistial record is presented, including regular and post season totals.
W = Wins
L = Losses
ERA = Earned Run Average (Earned Runs / IP x 9)
G = Games Picthed
GS = Games Started
CG = Complete Games
SHO = Shutouts
SV = Games Saved (Saves)
IP = Innings Pitched
H = Hits given up
BB = Base on Balls (Walks) given up
SO = Strikeouts
*ERA+ = 100 * ERA / League ERA adjusted for park factor
WHIP = Walks + Hits / Innings Picthed ((W+H)/IP)
SO/9 = Strikeouts per Nine Innings Pitched (9*SO/IP)
Back
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
LIST OF TEAMS
American League Classic
All-Time Boston Red Sox (1901-1949)
All-Time Chicago White Sox (1901-1949)
All-Time Cleveland Indians (1901-1949)
All-Time Detroit Tigers (1901-1949)
All-Time New York Yankees (1901-1949)
All-Time Philadelphia Athletics
All-Time St. Louis Bronws
All-Time Washington Senators
American League Modern
All-Time Baltimore Orioles
All-Time Boston Red Sox (1950-2009)
All-Time Chicago White Sox (1950-2009)
All-Time Cleveland Indians (1950-2009)
All-Time Detroit Tigers (1950-2009)
All-Time Kansas City and Oakland Athletics
All-Time Minnesota Twins
All-Time New York Yankees (1950-2009)
American League Expansion
All-Time Kansas City Royals
All-Time Los Angeles and California Angels of Anaheim
All-Time Seattle Mariners
All-Time Seattle Pilots and Milwaukee Brewers
All-Time Tampa Bay Devil Rays and Rays
All-Time Toronto Blue Jays
All-Time Washington Senators and Texas Rangers
National League Classic
All-Time Boston Braves
All-Time Brooklyn Dodgers
All-Time Chicago Cubs (1876-1949)
All-Time New York Giants
All-Time Cincinatti Reds (1882-1949)
All-Time Philadelphia Phillies (1883-1949)
All-Time Pittsburgh Pirates (1882-1949)
All-Time St. Louis Cardinals (1882-1949)
National League Modern
All-Time Chicago Cubs (1950-2009)
All-Time Cincinatti Reds (1950-2009)
All-Time Los Angeles Dodgers
All-Time Milwaukee and Atlanta Braves
All-Time Philadelphia Phillies (1950-2009)
All-Time Pittsburgh Pirates (1950-2009)
All-Time San Francicso Giants
All-Time St. Louis Cardinals (1950-2009)
National League Expansion
All-Time Arizona Diamondbacks
All-Time Colorado Rockies
All-Time Florida Marlins
All-Time Houston Colt .45's and Astros
All-Time Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals
All-Time New York Mets
All-Time San Diego Padres
All-Time Boston Red Sox (1901-1949)
All-Time Chicago White Sox (1901-1949)
All-Time Cleveland Indians (1901-1949)
All-Time Detroit Tigers (1901-1949)
All-Time New York Yankees (1901-1949)
All-Time Philadelphia Athletics
All-Time St. Louis Bronws
All-Time Washington Senators
American League Modern
All-Time Baltimore Orioles
All-Time Boston Red Sox (1950-2009)
All-Time Chicago White Sox (1950-2009)
All-Time Cleveland Indians (1950-2009)
All-Time Detroit Tigers (1950-2009)
All-Time Kansas City and Oakland Athletics
All-Time Minnesota Twins
All-Time New York Yankees (1950-2009)
American League Expansion
All-Time Kansas City Royals
All-Time Los Angeles and California Angels of Anaheim
All-Time Seattle Mariners
All-Time Seattle Pilots and Milwaukee Brewers
All-Time Tampa Bay Devil Rays and Rays
All-Time Toronto Blue Jays
All-Time Washington Senators and Texas Rangers
National League Classic
All-Time Boston Braves
All-Time Brooklyn Dodgers
All-Time Chicago Cubs (1876-1949)
All-Time New York Giants
All-Time Cincinatti Reds (1882-1949)
All-Time Philadelphia Phillies (1883-1949)
All-Time Pittsburgh Pirates (1882-1949)
All-Time St. Louis Cardinals (1882-1949)
National League Modern
All-Time Chicago Cubs (1950-2009)
All-Time Cincinatti Reds (1950-2009)
All-Time Los Angeles Dodgers
All-Time Milwaukee and Atlanta Braves
All-Time Philadelphia Phillies (1950-2009)
All-Time Pittsburgh Pirates (1950-2009)
All-Time San Francicso Giants
All-Time St. Louis Cardinals (1950-2009)
National League Expansion
All-Time Arizona Diamondbacks
All-Time Colorado Rockies
All-Time Florida Marlins
All-Time Houston Colt .45's and Astros
All-Time Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals
All-Time New York Mets
All-Time San Diego Padres
Rules of Qualification
PITCHERS:
16 Pitchers are selected, based on highest career WAR. If there isn't a bonafied relief pitcher (a pitcher who started less than 50% of their games) inthe top 16, tean the highest rated true Reliever will be selected and put into the 16th slot instead, despite the lower WAR rating.
Additional relief pitchers may also be added. They must be taken in order of WAR, and will take the place of the next lowest ranked starter. IMHO, in terms of resognizing a player's "greatness" (which is different from his "value") I believe that using WAR tends to favor starters over relivers a little too heavily. So based purely on my own subjective opinion, I've decided how many relief pitchers I thought each team should have on a case by case basis, based on how they ranked and who I thought was more deserving than the starter they would replaced. This is the sole area that's not 100% objective.
POSITION PLAYERS:
Position players are selected based on career WAR, and selected such that each team has at leats three qualifying players at each position. To qualify at a position, a player must have (1) been the teams starter at tha tposition for at leats 1 year and (2) have player at least 162 games at that position (or 154, prior to 1961.) Despite the fact that they may be occyping a certain position slot, the player will still be listed according to the qualifying positions they played the most.
Example: Craig Biggio occupies a Catcher's spot on the All-Time Astros, but will be listed as 2B-C-CF, since he played 1,989 Games at 2B, 428 at Catcher and 363 Games the the Outfield, with the majority (255) in Center. He was eligible at at each one of those positions, having played more than 162 games, and having been the team's starter at each for at least 1 season, but was put in the Catcher's lot due to there being preferable alternatives at 2B and OF than whomever would have ended up as the 3rd Catcher. Biggio was therefore put at Cather to make room for another Second Baseman.
DESIGNATED HITTERS:
A Career Designated Hitter can still be selected, assuming they have sifficent WAR.
A DH who still qualifies at a position, but who played more games at DH will be listed at the Position first, DH secondary. A player who does not qualify at any positions will take a slot at their secondary position and be listed as a DH first, with their position secondary. However - only ONE of either (not each) of this type of DH is allowed on a any team.
Examples:
Edgar Martinez (All-Time Mariners) is a 3B-DH. He qualified at 3B and played 564 Games there, but played 1412 Games at DH.
By contast David Ortiz (All-Time Red Sox) does not qualify at any position. Since he played 116 Games at 1B, and no other position beside DH, he will be treated as a First Baseman but listed as DH-1B. And as it works out, his WAR is sufficient to grab the third-string FirstBaseman's spot on the team.
Back
16 Pitchers are selected, based on highest career WAR. If there isn't a bonafied relief pitcher (a pitcher who started less than 50% of their games) inthe top 16, tean the highest rated true Reliever will be selected and put into the 16th slot instead, despite the lower WAR rating.
Additional relief pitchers may also be added. They must be taken in order of WAR, and will take the place of the next lowest ranked starter. IMHO, in terms of resognizing a player's "greatness" (which is different from his "value") I believe that using WAR tends to favor starters over relivers a little too heavily. So based purely on my own subjective opinion, I've decided how many relief pitchers I thought each team should have on a case by case basis, based on how they ranked and who I thought was more deserving than the starter they would replaced. This is the sole area that's not 100% objective.
POSITION PLAYERS:
Position players are selected based on career WAR, and selected such that each team has at leats three qualifying players at each position. To qualify at a position, a player must have (1) been the teams starter at tha tposition for at leats 1 year and (2) have player at least 162 games at that position (or 154, prior to 1961.) Despite the fact that they may be occyping a certain position slot, the player will still be listed according to the qualifying positions they played the most.
Example: Craig Biggio occupies a Catcher's spot on the All-Time Astros, but will be listed as 2B-C-CF, since he played 1,989 Games at 2B, 428 at Catcher and 363 Games the the Outfield, with the majority (255) in Center. He was eligible at at each one of those positions, having played more than 162 games, and having been the team's starter at each for at least 1 season, but was put in the Catcher's lot due to there being preferable alternatives at 2B and OF than whomever would have ended up as the 3rd Catcher. Biggio was therefore put at Cather to make room for another Second Baseman.
DESIGNATED HITTERS:
A Career Designated Hitter can still be selected, assuming they have sifficent WAR.
A DH who still qualifies at a position, but who played more games at DH will be listed at the Position first, DH secondary. A player who does not qualify at any positions will take a slot at their secondary position and be listed as a DH first, with their position secondary. However - only ONE of either (not each) of this type of DH is allowed on a any team.
Examples:
Edgar Martinez (All-Time Mariners) is a 3B-DH. He qualified at 3B and played 564 Games there, but played 1412 Games at DH.
By contast David Ortiz (All-Time Red Sox) does not qualify at any position. Since he played 116 Games at 1B, and no other position beside DH, he will be treated as a First Baseman but listed as DH-1B. And as it works out, his WAR is sufficient to grab the third-string FirstBaseman's spot on the team.
Back
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)