Fangraphs vs Baseball-Reference — my winner is?

Fangraphs vs. Baseball-Reference? Which do you go to first to judge baseball players?

For me, it's B-R, and will remain so, despite the omniscient Jonah Keri poo-poohing it. 

I like that B-R separates out O-WAR and D-WAR, too, and has a little bit of explainer, about how they related to, but don't add up exactly to, overall WAR, and why.

Second, I generally agree with B-R's D-WAR ratings.

D-WAR is a toughie, but, Fangraphs differs a lot, apparently, from B-R at times. B-R has Ozzie Smith 5 career WAR higher than Derek Jeter while Fangraphs has him about 6 points lower, based largely on D-WAR calculation differences.

WRONG!

The difference is even bigger with some other players. Fangraphs ranks Rod Carew nearly 10 points lower in career WAR.

It's also "interesting" that Fangraphs, despite Jaffe's JAWS system being nearly a decade old, doesn't incorporate it. To me, it's the best easy-to-use system of trying to find a sweet spot between career and peak performance.

Also, B-R has the Javascript balloons when you hover over the head of each category for lists, like JAWS lists, and not just for individual players. Better website design, that way.

And, on Hall of Fame judgments, I like B-R's Wins Above Average, or WAA, even better than WAR, no matter which site it comes from, if Fangraphs had WAA, which it doesn't. 

Finally, B-R has complete vote listings, with player stats for that year, on all major award. It's a hell of a lot easier to ask, whether Roberto Clemente, Sandy Koufax, Willie Mays or Juan Marichal should have won the 1966 National League MVP award, when it's all laid out in front of you.

Ditto for 1987, when we can argue that Oz, Dale Murphy or Tony Gwinn should have won the NL MVP over Andre Dawson when it's all in front of us, as well as to wonder if a third MVP for Murph gets him in Cooperstown, while none for the Hawk keeps him out.

On the other hand, as a spring training approaches, Fangraphs has Steamer, Oliver and other projections for the future season for players.

Summary? Fangraph is pitched to hardcore stats-heads, or rather, hardcore Level 2 or above sabermetricians. Baseball-Reference is pitched to serious baseball fans who want, and get, enough sabermetrics to have serious, informed discussion about relative player value.

Related to that, B-R's site is in general easier to use.

So, I'll still primarily use B-R, in part because it's kind enough to do RSS feeds of we bloggers who are registered with it and link to players on it (get with the program, Fangraphs!) but, I'll take at least a bit more of a look at Fangraphs. 

And, even if Fangraphs isn't an ad-based site, just like B-R, still pageviews can drive people to at least consider the paid version of either website. So, Fangraphs folks, another reason for you to follow the B-R lead and run blogger RSS feeds.

#Cooperstown candidacies: My summation of baseball Hall of Fame 2013 odds, merits

My general questions about potential baseball Hall of Fame candidates are along these lines:

1. Should he get in this year? 2. Should he get in at all? 3. Will he get in this year? 4. Will he get in at all? Following are players, linked to Baseball-Reference pages, then linked to my blog observations. 

Jack Morris: He's not close to deserving. No, No, probably not and maybe next year or via veterans vote.

Dale Murphy. Nice guy, but just no. No to all four questions.

Jeff Bagwell: Why, why is he still waiting? He shouldn't be. Yes, yes, maybe, and yes.

Lee Smith: Closers are generally overrated, including Lee. No, no, no, probably not.

Alan Trammell: Let's get him out from Ripken's shadow and get him in. Yes, yes, no, possibly.

Craig Biggio: Non-roiding "message man" has good shot this year. Yes, yes, probably, yes.

Tim Raines: Can he step out from Rickey Henderson's shadow? Yes, yes, probably no, and very  probably yes.

Kenny Lofton: Should a "junior Tim Raines" be in? No, lean no for now, no, probably not.

Edgar Martinez: Sorry, but he didn't do enough for me as a DH. No, no, no, probably.

Larry Walker: Sorry, fellow Cards fans, but injuries and what I see as a real Coors Field effect say no. No, no, no, probably not.

Fred McGriff: The Crime Dog falls short, and a fair degree, in my book. No, he shouldn't get in this year, or future years. And, he won't, on either.

Curt Schilling: He had an impressive peak, but, injuries aside, why was that peak so late? And are his counting stats too low? His sabermetric stats parallel Bagwell, but ... Kind of lean no on No. 1, I am pretty sure yes on No. 2, no, yes.

Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, et al. Here's my thoughts on likely roiders. Especially re the first two, no, no until individuals, union and Selig (and a few older writers) all apologize, no, and yes. 

And, yes, I know the Hall has morals problems already. I know that players used greenies back in the golden days of baseball. Etc., etc. I have written about that here; shorter thoughts are that this is about playing skills boosts and that I don't believe 1960s amphetamines delivered like that.

Mike Piazza: Besides "bacne," is catcher durability the biggest PEDs allegation shadow for him? See above on Clemens/Bonds.

If I had an actual vote this year, then, it would be Bagwell, Biggio, Raines, Trammell and maybe Schilling.

Your thoughts? Please vote in the poll!  

And, how will my predictions, and desires, square with BBWAA writers? Those who have released their votes to the public, as of last week, may be giving hope to Biggio and Bagwell, and also to me on wanting to keep Morris out.

And, why can't writers get one anti-vote, to vote one person OUT of the Hall? 

I am a "small Hall" guy. Contra Morris and Murphy fans who point to, say, Early Wynn or Jim Rice, respectively, there's plenty of people we should vote back OUT of Cooperstown. Here's some pitchers, and some batters, looking just at the modern baseball era, who need the boot.

And, until the BBWAA, the Hall of Fame itself, and, per my comments above, individual players facing allegations, the players union, and Bud Selig and owners all jointly get honest about roiding, voters are going to face a growing backlog of talented players in years ahead.

Oh, and the Veterans Committee will consider, among others, Tony La Russa and Joe Torre as managers.

Soon, I'll have an initial preview post about that 2014 ballot ... including those two managers.

Let's just say that, although I'm a St. Louis Cardinals fan, TLR managed, pre-St. Louis, the two most notorious early roiders in baseball. And, yes, Tony the Pony, you've got a law degree, but both of them have fessed up. No "alleged" needed.

Stay tuned.

If you're going to elect Dale Murphy to the Hall of Fame, you gotta ...

With just weeks left until this year's Baseball Hall of Fame announcement, beyond the special splash this year of speculation of how many votes recently retired alleged roiders will get, there's the annual push to get Dale Murphy and Jack Morris in the Hall of Fame.

This post is about the Murph, so ...

Let's look at the Murph's stats.

                                                                     
R         H  2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB  CS  BB   SO   BA  OBP  SLG  OPS OPS+
17       40   9  1   4   14   1   1   2   27 .288 .308 .453 .761  111
27       62  10  3   4   29   3   3  10   53 .282 .322 .409 .731  108
75      172  35 10  25  101   8   6  38   89 .308 .357 .541 .898  149
82      168  28 10  13   90  19   7  30   80 .313 .349 .475 .824  133
107     215  44  8  21   88  17  19  58  107 .338 .397 .531 .927  145
102     194  32 12  30  117  20   7  57   92 .334 .394 .585 .979  166
109     193  45  7  25   94  20   4  67  101 .310 .380 .526 .906  140
71      153  31  1  17   79  10   7  25   69 .295 .327 .458 .785  115
29       62  14  3   9   48   6   2   9   25 .258 .287 .454 .742  105
41       66  19  3   6   29   7   5  22   45 .270 .330 .447 .776  113
68      154  29  4  12   69  12   9  28   89 .279 .311 .411 .722   97
73      173  28  0  16   94  11  10  41   89 .285 .328 .410 .738  104
88      198  42  4  34  125   5  13  52   80 .312 .365 .551 .916  149
89      174  31  3  31  116   1   6  56  126 .273 .330 .477 .807  117
77      149  28  0  26   97   7   3  44  104 .253 .311 .433 .744   92
43       97  18  1  12   55   0   1  32   70 .257 .314 .406 .720  103
56      146  27  0  22   97   0   0  38   91 .264 .308 .432 .741  110
71      176  30  3  21   92   4   7  41  102 .289 .330 .451 .781  118
47      120  26  2  11   59   3   3  33   98 .239 .288 .365 .653   81
45      108  22  2  11   56   3   2  29   91 .232 .279 .358 .638   76
2        12   4  0   0    3   0   1   4    7 .333 .400 .444 .844  130
1272   2712 526 75 339 1493 154 113 683 1537 .290 .339 .471 .810  121

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 12/18/2012.
Nice, solid numbers, eh?

Now, a few of you may be scratching your heads at this point. Those of you really familiar with his stats know they're not his.

No, they're not. They're Dave Parker's numbers.

Here's Murphy's.

                                                                    
R         H  2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB   SO   BA  OBP  SLG  OPS OPS+
3        17   6  0   0    9   0  0   7    9 .262 .333 .354 .687   91
5        24   8  1   2   14   0  1   0    8 .316 .316 .526 .842  112
66      120  14  3  23   79  11  7  42  145 .226 .284 .394 .679   80
53      106   7  2  21   57   6  1  38   67 .276 .340 .469 .809  113
98      160  27  2  33   89   9  6  59  133 .281 .349 .510 .858  135
43       91  12  1  13   50  14  5  44   72 .247 .325 .390 .716  100
113     168  23  2  36  109  23 11  93  134 .281 .378 .507 .885  142
131     178  24  4  36  121  30  4  90  110 .302 .393 .540 .933  149
94      176  32  8  36  100  19  7  79  134 .290 .372 .547 .919  149
118     185  32  2  37  111  10  3  90  141 .300 .388 .539 .927  152
89      163  29  7  29   83   7  7  75  141 .265 .347 .477 .824  121
115     167  27  1  44  105  16  6 115  136 .295 .417 .580 .997  157
77      134  35  4  24   77   3  5  74  125 .226 .313 .421 .734  106
60      131  16  0  20   84   3  2  65  142 .228 .306 .361 .667   89
60      138  23  1  24   83   9  3  61  130 .245 .318 .417 .735   99
38       81  14  0  17   55   9  2  41   84 .232 .312 .418 .731   96
22       57   9  1   7   28   0  1  20   46 .266 .328 .416 .744  105
66      137  33  1  18   81   1  0  48   93 .252 .309 .415 .724  103
5        10   1  0   2    7   0  0   1   13 .161 .175 .274 .449   26
1         6   1  0   0    7   0  0   5   15 .143 .224 .167 .391    1
1197   2111 350 39 398 1266 161 68 986 1748 .265 .346 .469 .815  121

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 12/18/2012.
Just not quite as good as Parker's, are they? The biggie career stat, OPS+, is a virtual tie. Counting stats? Parker's well ahead in most.

But, surely, Murph was affected by injuries in part. And, surely, with 2 MVP awards — shades of Joe Morgan! — he was the more valuable player.

I won't argue there.

Here's the Murph's career number on a few sabermetric stats:

                                  
RAA    WAA RAR  WAR oWAR dWAR oRAR
140   16.3 412 42.6 44.9 -7.6  445

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 12/18/2012.

And here's Parker's:

                                  
RAA   WAA RAR  WAR oWAR  dWAR oRAR
44    6.7 354 36.3 37.9 -15.5  375

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 12/18/2012.

So, Murph WAS more valuable, yes. But, enough more valuable, not only in comparison to Parker but the HOF hurdle, to offset a relatively short career, and various injuries, and get in?

I say no.

If you use injuries/short career as an "out," then ... you have to elect Don Mattingly! Without me collapsing and formatting tables, just click his link along with Murph's. Mattingly had similar counting stats, and similar WAA and WAR, in an even shorter career.

(Sidebar: Murphy's dWAR shows that arguments for his admission based on part on his defensive prowess are overrated, too. And Parker was even more overrated.)

Anyway, that's the "you gotta" from the header. If you're going to elect Murph, you gotta elect the Cobra, or at least give him some serious consideration. (And, sidebar, you really gotta elect Mattingly, then). Because their careers almost exactly overlapped, comparing their Wins Above Replacement and Wins Above Average is very relevant. And, because they were both outfielders, the same goes for dWAR.

Now, related to that, why doesn't Parker get the HOF love Murphy does?

I'll be blunt.

I think it's a black and white issue, pun very much intended.

Related to that Parker was dirty — cocaine dirty — while Murphy was squeaky clean. Related to that, Parker was an irritating personality, while Murphy was ingratiating.

So, if you're the type of person who says we're worrying too much about actual, alleged, or possible roiders, or gamblers, and we shouldn't necessarily keep those types out, I'll do reverse intellectual judo and say, don't give an extra bump to somebody just because he's a nice guy.

Now, on point No. 3, on Murphy-Parker differences, some people make the same claims as to why Jim Rice took so long to get in the HOF. Well, first, he doesn't belong there. But, a Murphy-like campaign got him in. His personality has nothing to do with it.

And, I grew up in the 70s, too. And, to be honest, perhaps also reflecting personality differences, but perhaps also reflecting baseball ... I never feared Murphy at his peak the same way I did Parker.

Now, a sidebar, picking up from the top.

Morris, I've covered before. Shorter case here: He is not even close to Bert Blyleven, so those of you making this claim, stop it. Reality is that he's the worst 250-game winner in the history of baseball. He is at best no better than Early Wynn, who shouldn't be in the Hall himself, probably, and who definitely shows what happens when you rely too much on one single "counting" stat.

My two quick and easy reference stats for pitchers are ERA+ and WHIP/9. If your ERA+ for your career is above 110, good. If the career WHIP is at or below 1.25, good. If you only clear one of two hurdles, not good.

Well, Wynn and Morris both miss both hurdles. Pretty clear that one's a fake HOFer and the other shouldn't be let in. Blyleven, on the other hand, clears both hurdles with ease. Or, to put it another way, Blyleven's WAA is higher than Morris' WAR. Sabermetric types know that's a HUGE difference.

So, if you compare Black Jack to the Hotfooter on this blog, I'll kick you in the cybernads. Period.

Now, a little background to my Hall of Fame blogging —

I am a "small Hall" guy. In fact, I think there's plenty of people we should vote back OUT of Cooperstown. Here's some pitchers, and some batters, looking just at the modern baseball era, who need the boot.

And, click the  "MLB Hall of Fame" tag for more on other candidates on this year's ballot and my thoughts.


Oh, and while you're here, please vote in my poll.

My MLB Hall of Fame thoughts

First, it’s good the Goose is in there. Gossage has long been deserving.

Second, no to Jim Rice. Not enough years played, not that good an outfielder, not that good a batter outside Fenway.

Andre Dawson? Still on the bubble for me. Those who say he should be a sure-fire HOFer, compare his career and Fred McGriff’s. Do you believe Crime Dog is as much a HOFer as Hawk, allowing for two fewer years played? Extrapolate out, and McGriff, who still played 19 years himself, breaks 500 homers, has more RBIs and runs scored than Hawk. He already has a much higher OBP and fairly higher OPS as well as somewhat higher slugging and BA. As for any steroids issue, Crime Dog and Hawk overlap enough that McGriff’s best years were in a lower-power era. He won two HR titles and didn’t hit 40 either time. McGriff also, on teams that often had more batters than Hawk’s Cubs, actually got more intentional walks.

Yes, 1B is supposed to have more sluggers. But, McGriff was also one of the better fielders of his day, there.

So, be reasonable. If Hawk is a HOFer, Crime Dog has basically the same argument. So, why does only the one get all the publicity?

Bert Blyleven? Should be in. Jack Morris? Not, at least not easily. Swap the teams the two pitched for over their careers, and Blyleven would have won well more than 300. Morris would have won about 220-225.

Dale Murphy? A very good player for several years and a nice guy. But, did he ever have that intimidation factor? Not really. And, a .265 BA. Sorry, Murph, but no.