Top WAR of all time

[atomic]

You can't compare WAR for position players against pitchers, its comparing apples vs oranges.

Palmer low career WAR is the reason, some believe he doesn't belong in the HOF, since its below the normal threshold.

Significantly higher than Andre Dawson, Jim Rice, Lou Brock, Luis Aparcihio , Ryne Sandberg, Sandy Koufax, Roy Campenella etc etc. all of whom are in the hall. Higher than Roberto Alomar, Jon Smoltz, Craig Biggio,

3 Cy Young awards, Many World Series appearances, Multiple World Series victories, Multiple Gold Gloves. If you start excluding guys like Jim Palmer from the Hall of fame there won't be anyone in the Hall.

[25 Nuggets]

You are correct, but you also listed older pitchers, newer pitchers are expected to have a WAR over 70.

Granted Palmer isn't at 70, and I wasn't trying to say he doesn't belong, but there are some that believe that.

Just like I believe Mussina deserves to be in the HOF and meets most of the thresold, but others do not believe so.

There are few that believe Palmer is not a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher, even in the sabermetric community. At least as far as I know. The lowest I ever see him rated is in the 30th-40th all time range, which happens to be where his WAR score is.

[Redskins Rick]

Significantly higher than Andre Dawson, Jim Rice, Lou Brock, Luis Aparcihio , Ryne Sandberg, Sandy Koufax, Roy Campenella etc etc. all of whom are in the hall. Higher than Roberto Alomar, Jon Smoltz, Craig Biggio,

3 Cy Young awards, Many World Series appearances, Multiple World Series victories, Multiple Gold Gloves. If you start excluding guys like Jim Palmer from the Hall of fame there won't be anyone in the Hall.

Like I told Drungo, I wasn't making the case, that the man didn't belong.

[DrungoHazewood]

You are correct, but you also listed older pitchers, newer pitchers are expected to have a WAR over 70.

Are they? I'm not sure the Hall has any consistent standards. Tom Glavine is at 67 fWAR. All the recent relievers are under 40, most under 30. From Ryan in '99 through Blyleven in '11 they basically didn't induct any starters, besides the year they inducted about 20 Negro Leaguers.

The HOF voters have issues with change, and with pitching roles in constant flux they more-or-less gave up for a while, and only recently got back to some inner circle types or guys like Glavine who passed magic thresholds.

[DrungoHazewood]

People are using WAR as a statistic. That's an incorrect usage. WAR is a value assigned but is not s statistic. You can't prove that a team a team of only replacement level players would win 29.4% of games played.

That only matters if you're ornery and cantankerous. Your life relies heavily and daily on thousands of things that you and I basically accept as magic, that we lack any ability to prove.

[Redskins Rick]

Are they? I'm not sure the Hall has any consistent standards. Tom Glavine is at 67 fWAR. All the recent relievers are under 40, most under 30. From Ryan in '99 through Blyleven in '11 they basically didn't induct any starters, besides the year they inducted about 20 Negro Leaguers.

The HOF voters have issues with change, and with pitching roles in constant flux they more-or-less gave up for a while, and only recently got back to some inner circle types or guys like Glavine who passed magic thresholds.

Thanks for the education.

Mussina is 82.7.

I know, he falls short by some because he has less than 300 wins, but in today's game, 5 man SP staff and quicker hooks, I doubt we will see anymore 300 game winners.

[25 Nuggets]

It's not provable mathematically therefore it's not science.

We're talking about statistics, not scientific theory.

A batting average is provable as a reflection of past performance. It's a theory of how well a player will hit in the future.

uh... what? Maybe I don't understand -- you're saying it's both right?

From batting average, to slugging/on base percentage, to OPS+, to wRC+, to oWAR it's all provable as a reflection of past performance -- just different ways of looking at the same data. Theories of how well a player will do in the future -- that's a different ball of wax and I think neither batting average nor WAR are terribly good predictors of it.

[atomic]

Are they? I'm not sure the Hall has any consistent standards. Tom Glavine is at 67 fWAR. All the recent relievers are under 40, most under 30. From Ryan in '99 through Blyleven in '11 they basically didn't induct any starters, besides the year they inducted about 20 Negro Leaguers.

The HOF voters have issues with change, and with pitching roles in constant flux they more-or-less gave up for a while, and only recently got back to some inner circle types or guys like Glavine who passed magic thresholds.

FWAR and BWAR are totally different calculations for pitchers. If you are going to use WAR as an absolute measure of a player at least agree on how to calculate it.

[DrungoHazewood]

FWAR and BWAR are totally different calculations for pitchers. If you are going to use WAR as an absolute measure of a player at least agree on how to calculate it.

Why? Aren't there competing philosophies of how much impact a pitcher has on batted balls, and there are two flavors of WAR to reflect this? Two different versions of WAR stimulate discussion. Advocating for one or the other means you have settled on one, and I'm not sure that's warranted just yet.

WAR is just a framework. abbott doesn't know it, but he has a personal WAR in his own head that he informally calculates every time he compares two players, such as in a trade. fWAR and rWAR are just consistent means of writing that down and repeating the implementation of the framework for everyone.

[Redskins Rick]

There are few that believe Palmer is not a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher, even in the sabermetric community. At least as far as I know. The lowest I ever see him rated is in the 30th-40th all time range, which happens to be where his WAR score is.

There are more than one article like this:

http://www.lonestarball.com/2011/4/8/2097836/jim-palmer-the-most-overrated-pitcher-of-all-time

Bleacher Report had him listed, 39th out of 40 top over rated pitchers:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/847831-40-most-overrated-pitchers-in-baseball-history/page/3

Again, I am not endorsing their opinion, but there are opinions like this out there. So its hard to say few.

[DrungoHazewood]

There are more than one article like this:

http://www.lonestarball.com/2011/4/8/2097836/jim-palmer-the-most-overrated-pitcher-of-all-time

Bleacher Report had him listed, 39th out of 40 top over rated pitchers:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/847831-40-most-overrated-pitchers-in-baseball-history/page/3

Again, I am not endorsing their opinion, but there are opinions like this out there. So its hard to say few.

You have to consider the source and the slant of the piece. Sure, Palmer can be labeled overrated. He was credited with a lot of wins with an approach that relied a lot on having a good defense. He wouldn't have looked nearly as good in front of less spectacular defenses or in better hitter's parks. But that doesn't mean he wasn't good.

I think the most overrated pitcher ever was probably Koufax, and I'd put him in the Hall.

[Redskins Rick]

You have to consider the source and the slant of the piece. Sure, Palmer can be labeled overrated. He was credited with a lot of wins with an approach that relied a lot on having a good defense. He wouldn't have looked nearly as good in front of less spectacular defenses or in better hitter's parks. But that doesn't mean he wasn't good.

I think the most overrated pitcher ever was probably Koufax, and I'd put him in the Hall.

Sandy had nasty stuff, he was untouchable when he was on, and that was my own eye test.

I think Bob Gibson, is probably the best pitcher that I have watched pitched over the years.

[25 Nuggets]

The Lone Star piece talks about Palmer's ERA-FIP spread and does not mention the Hall of Fame, just that he benefited so much from Robinson, Belanger and Blair.

From the Bleacher Report piece:

Jim Palmer is another outstanding pitcher that is completely deserving of his spot in the Hall of Fame.

So, while you and I have both seen plenty about Palmer being "overrated", I still haven't see many opinions that exclude him from Cooperstown and the very few that I have, had a ridiculously small personal list of inductees.

[DrungoHazewood]

The Hall of Fame gray area goes from about 20 WAR to 80 WAR. Ray Schalk is in the Hall with 22 fWAR, Bad Bill Dahlen is out at 77.5. I'd guess 1 in 100 players around Schalk's level are in the Hall, and about 95% of players at Dahlen's are in.

So there's a lot of room for a player to be both overrated and HOF-worthy. Palmer is 56th on the fWAR list, and 50-60 are Drysdale, Wynn, Tanana, Wells, Finley, Gooden, Palmer, Hubbell, Ruffing, Cone, Newsom. Five are in the Hall, and I could come up with reasonable HOF cases for most/all of them.

[abbott]

Why? Aren't there competing philosophies of how much impact a pitcher has on batted balls, and there are two flavors of WAR to reflect this? Two different versions of WAR stimulate discussion. Advocating for one or the other means you have settled on one, and I'm not sure that's warranted just yet.

WAR is just a framework. abbott doesn't know it, but he has a personal WAR in his own head that he informally calculates every time he compares two players, such as in a trade. fWAR and rWAR are just consistent means of writing that down and repeating the implementation of the framework for everyone.

Maybe there is a miscommunication or misunderstanding with my opinion, and we are all talking about opinions. Not Facts.

WAR is an opinion of a player's value, or worth, to a team. It may be derived via actuall statistics, but it is extrapolated to create an informed opinion as to a player's value. It's weighted variables are a product of someone's educated opinion. But it is not a fact. If a player has a WAR of 4.0, it is a opinion that the player is worth 4 wins better than a mythical replacement player. It is not a fact.

So if someone wants to tell me that Tom Seaver was a better pitcher than Jim Palmer, I would grudgingly agree. If you wanted to state as a fact that Seaver was 30% better, I'd say: BS and and prove it. And you can't prove it. You can say he has more innings pitched, more wins, more starts ... And that makes him better, but it's not quantifiable