I think pitching is much more susceptible to SSS, so I value longevity for pitchers more than I do for hitters. But I still value longevity for hitters (something this project specifically has adjusted my opinion on).
That’s actually expected and part of the fun too. Different criteria for different voters making the outcome unpredictable. Aaron is such a legend and has such strong compilation stats that it overcomes his lack of peak. Someone like Palmeiro doesn’t have enough to overcome that. Meanwhile others have such strong peaks it overcomes their lack of compiling. Fascinating process
There does seem to be a lot more of 'if I could have any pitcher for one game its ___' when it comes to the evaluation.
I agree with that. If you watch baseball a lot you'll remember there is a big variance from year to year. I remember a lot of guys considered "best pitcher right now". Some times it lasts a couple months, sometimes a year or even 2. Even the great pitchers aren't that way every year but they achieve that status multiple times in their careers.
I see your point. I included those partial seasons with Trout to bring his numbers down a little. If you exclude them his numbers are elite but you only get 8 seasons, which is less than most position players we're looking at. (although he did an awful lot with those 8 seasons)
That’s how it works for a group. You pick the best of what’s available. I think you are the only one who is totally distraught about that. Again, I created a thread for individual lists, and it was co l,Emely ignored. As I completely expected it would be.
I think that just means we came in with different starting points. I suspected you pulled me closer to the “accumulator” side, and I brought you further to the “peak” side.
Yup.
I think that just means we came in with different starting points. I suspected you pulled me closer to the “accumulator” side, and I brought you further to the “peak” side.
And that is what a good open debate is supposed to do.
I might we willing to compromise on ‘20 by tripling the WAR for the purpose of WAR#. But that also just takes a SSS and assumes it would have been maintained over 162. And that NEVER happens. So maybe doubling is a better compromise. But that is arbitrary as well.
I think looking at multiple WAR#s is more helpful than JUST looking at WAR7. But I do agree that WAR7 is probably the best STARTING POINT for WAR# discussions.
The only a few real “other ways” to do this type of poll…
No I wouldn't want to give him artificial WAR for something he didn't do. I was just saying that since I kind of throw out partial seasons we could still include that one. But I don't think it matters much. To move up the rankings he really needs to put up another full season or 2 at a high level. (Which at age 32-33 isn't out of the question). I have him selected right now, but I may slide him out for someone else.
