Comments on: CCGs: A Whole Different Look

By: Josh

Josh — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:41:45 +0000

Minor nitpick, Joe. You said: “2. The 2000 Amazin’s had Edgar Alfonzo and Mike Piazza … and a slew of guys who had pretty good years.”

Edgardo Alfonzo is the infielder who helped the Mets reach the World Series in 2000:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/alfoned01.shtml

Edgar Alfonzo is Edgardo’s older brother, currently the manger of the Mets’ single-A affiliate, the Brooklyn Cyclones:
http://www.brooklyncyclones.com/team/coaches/index.html?staff_id=27

Great analysis otherwise, though!

By: Jim P

Jim P — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:39:51 +0000

No War for Basil!

By: studes

studes — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:42:21 +0000

I’ve got to say, 12 Win Shares is way too low for an “average” everyday player, but not for a pitcher. At THT, we track “expected Win Shares,” which is the number of Win Shares an average player would be expected to accrue, given a specific player’s playing time. Most every day players come in around 17 or 18 if they haven’t been injured. An everyday player who played all season and accrued only 12 Win Shares is a very bad player.

By: DJ

DJ — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:06:55 +0000

I’m trying to get this kind-of discussion started over at the Orioles Hangout but it’s not going too well.

I think it is a very interesting theory. You are only likely to have a couple real star players on your team, so it is important to know how many players you need on a certain level to be successful.

(Here’s the link to the message-board thread, by the way…http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60015)

By: Fezzik

Fezzik — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:38:20 +0000

Thanks for the tip on Bill’s Win Shares book. I picked up a copy this week.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:14:36 +0000

Some people are born to denigrate. I can’t believe that anyone with an interest in baseball would look down there nose at this article except to troll. Well, enough on that. In summary, we’ve got the germ of an idea about how win shares actually correlates to pennants. Great food for thought on what the chances of my Rangers might be this year. Actually, I’m feeling pretty hungry. I hope our guys start setting the table soon.

By: Jason M

Jason M — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 16:52:02 +0000

Joe - isn’t using Win Shares to look at team composition inherently problematic? I’m no mathlete, but as I understand it, Win Shares are Team Wins * 3, distributed via complicated measures throughout the team. By definition, a playoff team will have more WS because they’ll have more wins. So all your ranking is doing is showing the small variances among teams as to how much they rely on a few key players vs. a well-rounded build, but skewed by how many regular season wins a team gets (as in 2006).

What does it prove? A .500 team will by definition have fewer WS to spread around, so will seem less full of CCGs than a playoff team. Pretty much all it demonstrates that if you want to make the playoffs, winning a lot of games is a good strategy.

But hey, I’m doubting Bill James here, so I’m probably wrong.

By: Tony B

Tony B — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 16:37:18 +0000

PB&J - PB on one side, J on the other.

Then you spend the next 5 minutes eating the PB straight from the jar.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 07:25:44 +0000

When I worked retail in one of those trendy shopping-and-restaurant districts, it was my solemn mission to make customers aware that there were half a dozen places both better and cheaper than The Cheesecake Factory within a two-block radius. I’m not tremendously elitist about these things - I’d eat at a Cheesecake Factory without complaint in the many places where chain restaurants are all you get - but it definitely fails the “better than saving the $15-20 and eating at home” test for me. My campaign didn’t change very many minds, which is how I learned that people go out to eat for very many different reasons, and quality of food is not always the main one, and that’s perfectly OK. Kind of sounds like a parallel to the Hall of Fame argument for a ballplayer whose name rhymes with Dim Mice, now that I think about it…

By: Rubin Sierra

Rubin Sierra — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 06:49:13 +0000

Why the asterisks after Canseco’s name? Is that a steroid asterisk? That would be lame. I’m hoping there was a footnote that you forgot to make.

That is weird that the ‘89 A’s team was the one “without a star,” especially because that team was so star-studded in terms of name recognition. Especially compared with the Moneyball teams of today.