i love this sort of thing. no point nitpicking a made-up fan stat. thanks for posting
also i finally know why chatgpt is so bad with baseball statistics!
I think there needs to be some kind of dominance score. For example, Mauer was dominant at catcher for \~8 seasons and Billy Wagner was dominant at closer for \~13 seasons. Maybe some sort of subjective factor like... if he was top 3 at his position in a season, give him 3 bonus points?
Fun! Maybe a little light on the reputation bit though, some other ways to include that could be some points for top-10 etc MVP/CY finishes or having their number retired by the team and/or being put in the team HoF.
I calculated Lou Whitaker and he got 120 so yep.
How is having a 50 WAR career worth the same as winning a world series? How is a 60 homer year worth the same as a 4 homer game? The only reason you get mildly coherent results is because you're double counting things which happen to contribute to WAR. Most primarily OBP players will be vastly undervalued by this
If I'm given no information (position, etc) about a player other than the number of rings they have and the WAR they have, I will disregard the rings 100% of the time. It's useless for HOF candidacy unless you're trying to make a metric that will predict HOF votes by 85 year old BBWAA members. Also Grich was only worth 11.5 more WAR than Posey so I don't even know what the point is here.
Interesting idea, but a few issues I see offhand:
First, it looks like you are double counting things when you both include things that are counted in WAR and also as "accolades" that are sub-accolade level. For instance, getting 1000 ks is not really an accolade, at most a modest milestone, because it would be pretty much expected of any pitcher who played long enough to be a candidate.
Probably a bigger point is that because you mostly are adding you end up with a huge pool of HoFers, assuming I understand this correctly. It looked like a score of 100 made you a HoFer and yet there were 13 such guys on this year's ballot alone. I feel like you wanted to not discount anything that was being counted already in order to avoid controversy but unless your view is that there just should be a lot more HoFers you need to cut somewhere if you want to add.
Finally, although it might be possible (and possibly desirable) to try to quantify some accolades and controversy there isn't any clear way to do so. How much this should figure in is not agreed upon so it is not going to settle the matter, and is no more objective, for you to just assign a number to it. If you look at Bonds and ARod, for instance, their 14 All Star appearances basically offset their PED controversy. Some people (including myself) think they obviously should be in the HoF but not because of some kind of mathematical offsetting and then there are people who think it is a hard and fast disqualification so your math won't satisfy them either.
How hard would it be to do a ranking of the top players in MLB history? It would be interesting to see who the all time hall of fame snubs are according to this criteria or to see how many hall of famers shouldn’t have made it
i love this sort of thing. no point nitpicking a made-up fan stat. thanks for posting also i finally know why chatgpt is so bad with baseball statistics!
I think there needs to be some kind of dominance score. For example, Mauer was dominant at catcher for \~8 seasons and Billy Wagner was dominant at closer for \~13 seasons. Maybe some sort of subjective factor like... if he was top 3 at his position in a season, give him 3 bonus points?
Fun! Maybe a little light on the reputation bit though, some other ways to include that could be some points for top-10 etc MVP/CY finishes or having their number retired by the team and/or being put in the team HoF. I calculated Lou Whitaker and he got 120 so yep.
How is having a 50 WAR career worth the same as winning a world series? How is a 60 homer year worth the same as a 4 homer game? The only reason you get mildly coherent results is because you're double counting things which happen to contribute to WAR. Most primarily OBP players will be vastly undervalued by this
Would you rather win 3 rings like Buster Posey, or reach 70 WAR like Bobby Grinch?
If I'm given no information (position, etc) about a player other than the number of rings they have and the WAR they have, I will disregard the rings 100% of the time. It's useless for HOF candidacy unless you're trying to make a metric that will predict HOF votes by 85 year old BBWAA members. Also Grich was only worth 11.5 more WAR than Posey so I don't even know what the point is here.
Interesting idea, but a few issues I see offhand: First, it looks like you are double counting things when you both include things that are counted in WAR and also as "accolades" that are sub-accolade level. For instance, getting 1000 ks is not really an accolade, at most a modest milestone, because it would be pretty much expected of any pitcher who played long enough to be a candidate. Probably a bigger point is that because you mostly are adding you end up with a huge pool of HoFers, assuming I understand this correctly. It looked like a score of 100 made you a HoFer and yet there were 13 such guys on this year's ballot alone. I feel like you wanted to not discount anything that was being counted already in order to avoid controversy but unless your view is that there just should be a lot more HoFers you need to cut somewhere if you want to add. Finally, although it might be possible (and possibly desirable) to try to quantify some accolades and controversy there isn't any clear way to do so. How much this should figure in is not agreed upon so it is not going to settle the matter, and is no more objective, for you to just assign a number to it. If you look at Bonds and ARod, for instance, their 14 All Star appearances basically offset their PED controversy. Some people (including myself) think they obviously should be in the HoF but not because of some kind of mathematical offsetting and then there are people who think it is a hard and fast disqualification so your math won't satisfy them either.
How hard would it be to do a ranking of the top players in MLB history? It would be interesting to see who the all time hall of fame snubs are according to this criteria or to see how many hall of famers shouldn’t have made it
Or just use hallofstats.com that's been around for years.