Win Shares

Rating:
Summary: Win Shares: A New, Exciting (and incomplete!) Frontier
Review: :
People often look to new statistics to simply reaffirm what they already believe. Of course Babe Ruth's 1927 season was the greatest of all time. Of course, Bob Gibson's 1968 season was the pinnacle of pitching excellence in the 'live ball' era. Without a doubt, any number of Ozzie Smith's seasons would rank him in the very top of shortstops in terms of defense. And book after book comes out and tells us the same stuff we already have heard.

I, for one, have listened to enough people repeating these supposed "truisms" of baseball history to be exciting to another bandwagon statistician. The beauty of Bill James' Win Shares is that it presents a different way of looking at things, thus contributing in a new and exciting way to the discourse of baseball statistical exploration. And by the way, according to James's research, Babe Ruth's '27 season didn't crack James' Top 25. Two pitchers in the year 1972 alone rank better than Gibby's '68 campaign. And, no matter how hard you look, no Ozzie Smith season made the 10 ten for defense among shortstops.

James' system operates on the idea that individual statistics (such as batting average or home runs) should not be looked at in a vacuum. Obviously, a home run in Coors Field is less significant than a home run in Dodger Stadium. With more runs being scored, a home run in Colorado does less to contribute to a win than a home run in a traditional pitcher's park like Chavez Ravine. And batting .350 in 1932 when the National League average was over .300 means far less than it does in 2001 when the league average is in the .250 range. After fighting for years the problems that eras and parks present, James has extended the scope of statistical examination beyond solely considering production stats like slugging percentages and runs created, instead asking the simple and ultimate question: Who contributes more to producing a win? The idea of Wins created spans eras, positions, hitters parks, pitchers parks, good teams and bad teams. It includes pitching, hitting and defense and arrives at a single integer which can compare the seasons of any two players.

The idea of win shares presents an entire new methodology of statistical examination. The book, however, is not the final word on this new area of analysis. Bill James himself is careful to point out that there are some flaws, assumptions and imperfections in his work that will be smoothed out by he and others over the coming years. But it is exciting nonetheless to see the dawn of a new era in the field of baseball statistics.

Early criticisms of James' method have mainly been poorly reasoned, reflecting the some frustration at having subjective assumptions thrown out of whack. One reviewer on this very site has rejected out of hand James' entire work because he believes Troy Glaus is a better player than Jeff Conine and thus refuses to accept the fact that in 2001, Conine might have been more valuable. This is an easy trap to fall into. Win Shares makes no effort to proclaim who is an overall better player. Just because Jeff Conine out performed Troy Glaus in 2001 does not mean he will repeat that feat in 2002. And Conine's 2001 rating does not mean that he is somehow more valuable than Glaus in the long run. It simply says that he was more valuable over the course of a single season. And that's the fun part of the Win Share system. It demonstrates how, for example, Mo Vaughn won the MVP over Albert Belle in 1995, despite ranking 10th in the AL (and 2nd on his own team!) in Win Shares. It lets us compare Jimmy Fox to Barry Bonds.

But, as mentioned above, the system is not perfect. Certain results are so questionable that even at a quick glance, a reader can see a problem which needs to be explored further. In the ranking of the top 25 individual seasons in the post-1900 era, 16 come from the 25 year period of 1903-1928. Another 5 come from the 15 year span of 1942-1957. In other words, no seasons from 1929-1941 and only 4 from 1958-2001 cracked the top 25 (Bonds in 1993 and 2001, Mantle in '61 and Will Clark in 1989). While its possible that 84% of the top 25 seasons could have occurred in less than 40 of the 101 years of Major League Baseball, it seems unlikely that it's a simple coincidence. One is left to wonder how an era bias slipped into the equation.

Win Shares is original, exciting, complex, thought provoking, and fun. At this point, I would not use the data Bill James has collected by itself. But it certainly can immediately place itself alongside with OPS and Runs Created as a statistic that really tells us something of value. Win Shares is a challenging read. Over 120 pages of statistical method derivation and explanation is enough to intimidate even the most avid of amateur statisticians. But it's worth it, so don't be deterred. Once again, Bill James has pushed the envelope and encouraged us to examine old issues in new and fun ways.

Rating:
Summary: Well thought out, difficult to render judgement just yet
Review: A number of other reviewers have critisized Bill James' latest effort. While he does address the downsides to Pete Palmer's system, and then proclaim not to be "judging it," I don't feel that detracts too much from his work. On to some issues (good and bad) with the book.
Other reviewers have found issue with the fact that Win Shares are distributed without taking into account Predicted W-L records and the "luck" that determines the outcomes of some games. I disagree with that notion. James is not seeking to place a singular value on a player's season in a vacuum; rather, he determines a player's worth in the context of his team's performance. If you follow his method, he assigns "claim points" PRIOR to assigning Win Shares. These essentially determine the proportion of the team's success that is credited to a given player. If a team wins 90 games, regardless of their Pythagorean W-L record, their players did, in fact, win 90 games.
As a Twins fan, I will use 2001 as an example. Their record was 85-77, though the predicted record would be 82-80 based on runs scored vs. runs allowed. Corey Koskie is credited with 24 Win Shares in that season. Scaling down his Win Shares because the Twins finished higher than the Pythagoreon method makes little sense. First of all, who is to say the Pythagorean method tells us more than the actual record? A couple of blowout games can skew a teams predicted record, but losing by 5 runs is essentially the same as losing by 15. Second, keep in mind that James is not trying to say what SHOULD have happened; rather, he is analyzing what DID happen.
That said, Win Shares does fall short in some respects. It's most valuable when comparing the worth of players on one team; comparisons across different teams and seasons reduces its utility, in my opinion. James' decision to make each win worth 3 "Win Shares" is likewise questionable. While it is easy to convert those into a single-win system, the inverse would also be easy. James' system has the effect of emphasizing relatively small differences between players, which is just the kind of thing sabermetrics people are supposed to avoid.
Overall, though, there's a lot of good work here-especially on defensive statistical analysis. I suggest it to anyone who has either read James in the past or is interested in learning more about his chosen field.

Rating:
Summary: Well thought out, difficult to render judgement just yet
Review: A number of other reviewers have critisized Bill James' latest effort. While he does address the downsides to Pete Palmer's system, and then proclaim not to be "judging it," I don't feel that detracts too much from his work. On to some issues (good and bad) with the book.
Other reviewers have found issue with the fact that Win Shares are distributed without taking into account Predicted W-L records and the "luck" that determines the outcomes of some games. I disagree with that notion. James is not seeking to place a singular value on a player's season in a vacuum; rather, he determines a player's worth in the context of his team's performance. If you follow his method, he assigns "claim points" PRIOR to assigning Win Shares. These essentially determine the proportion of the team's success that is credited to a given player. If a team wins 90 games, regardless of their Pythagorean W-L record, their players did, in fact, win 90 games.
As a Twins fan, I will use 2001 as an example. Their record was 85-77, though the predicted record would be 82-80 based on runs scored vs. runs allowed. Corey Koskie is credited with 24 Win Shares in that season. Scaling down his Win Shares because the Twins finished higher than the Pythagoreon method makes little sense. First of all, who is to say the Pythagorean method tells us more than the actual record? A couple of blowout games can skew a teams predicted record, but losing by 5 runs is essentially the same as losing by 15. Second, keep in mind that James is not trying to say what SHOULD have happened; rather, he is analyzing what DID happen.
That said, Win Shares does fall short in some respects. It's most valuable when comparing the worth of players on one team; comparisons across different teams and seasons reduces its utility, in my opinion. James' decision to make each win worth 3 "Win Shares" is likewise questionable. While it is easy to convert those into a single-win system, the inverse would also be easy. James' system has the effect of emphasizing relatively small differences between players, which is just the kind of thing sabermetrics people are supposed to avoid.
Overall, though, there's a lot of good work here-especially on defensive statistical analysis. I suggest it to anyone who has either read James in the past or is interested in learning more about his chosen field.

Rating:
Summary: A refreshing step back
Review: A reader said earlier, if someone other than James wrote this book, no one would care. This is probably true. However, that James had the determination to write it is in itself amazing. He is basically saying we need to take a step back from baseball statistics (and much of what he himself has worked on before) and get a better feel for what these statistics really mean. In this book James provides an outline of how statistics should properly be analyzed. Much of his analysis (especially fielding formulas) is subjective. He explains that many values are estimates. However, James always is sure to explain the logic for his analysis. Furthermore he states that he hopes and expects better estimates and methods of analysis to be found to evaluate players.

Win Shares is not the grand masterpiece many readers were hoping for. Instead it is a retraction of much of the previous statistical work of the last decades, to much of which James contributed, and an explanation of a better approach. This book shows James' determination to find truth within statistics, no matter what limitations there are on the system. Win Shares MUST use a lot of subjectivity and estimates to get at the truth of the statistics. It is sacrifice that is well worth the price.

Rating:
Summary: While not spectacular, a great start for baseball analysis
Review: A reader said earlier, if someone other than James wrote this book, no one would care. This is probably true. However, that James had the determination to write it is in itself amazing. He is basically saying we need to take a step back ifrom baseball statistics (and much of what he himself has worked on before) and get a better feel for what these statistics really mean. For a leading statistician to take this step is amazing. In this book James provides an outline of how statistics should properly be analyzed. Much of his analysis (especially fielding formulas) is subjective. He explains that many values are estimates. However, James always is sure to explain the logic for his analysis. Furthermore he states that he hopes and expects better estimates and methods of analysis to be found to evaluate players.

Win Shares is not the grand masterpiece many readers were hoping for. Instead it is a retraction of much of the previous statistical work of the last decades, to much of which James contributed, and an explanation of a better approach. This book shows James' determination to find truth within statistics, no matter what limitations there are on the system. Win Shares MUST use alot of subjectivity and estimates to get at the truth of statistics. It is sacrifice that is well worth the price.

Rating:
Summary: Some critics not seeing the forest for the trees
Review: Another great Bill James effort. His "New Historical Abstract" had introduced us to the "Win Shares" approach, and here, he fleshes it out. A real treat is that we even get ratings for middle-of-the-pack players; there aren't too many places where you can find meaningful ratings for guys like Omar Moreno, or Horace Clarke (who actually rates surprisingly well). Also the "letter grade" evaluations of players' defense are a fascinating treasure trove, and apparently the most correct defensive ratings yet, albeit with aberrations -- e.g., is Derek Jeter really a D+?

One negative: the author is too scathing toward his colleagues. It's not that he isn't RIGHT about the flaws in their methods, but his forcefulness is off-putting, especially since (presumably) he's talking about his friends. (Hey, Bill, you don't want to turn into Howard Cosell!)

There are indeed flaws in the Win Shares method, but the author acknowledges them, and he emphasizes that his method, like all others so far, is a work in progress; in fact he seems unique among his colleagues in how prominently he acknowledges this. The Win Shares method seems a HUGE advance over everything else. Perhaps the largest and most important breakthrough is very simple, and I don't think the author highlights this enough: The method inherently places a premium on WINNING; if your team wins a lot of games, you tend to rate higher by this method than by others.

This book's ratings seem like the best of any so far anywhere, and the methodology is by far the most satisfying.

Rating:
Summary: For die-hards, mostly - 3.5 stars
Review: Bill James latest book, Win Shares, is probably mostly of interest to really die-hard stathead baseball fans. Win Shares, as a tool for evaluating players, is of great interest to fans. It is a quantum leap forward in the analysis of ballplayers, allowing the evaluation of players based on a single number without the biases and problems built into linear analyis. And it is the first to correctly account for defense -- both in recognizing great defensive players and taking credit away from pitchers who thrived because of their defense.

This book, in particular, however, is one that all but the most diehard statheads will find a tad disappointing. The first 100 pages of the book is concerned with constructing the system and running it through three examples. I found this interesting because I was fascinated by the construction of this system. James does an excellent job of justifying his methodology and is sensitive to the fact that this is the first version of Win Shares -- it can stand improvement. But it might get tedious if numbers don't fascinate you.

The second section details why he made some of the decisions he made in constructing the system. The third section is what most people will find interesting -- a long section of Jamesian essays looking at ROY awards, MVP awards, comparing various players, finding good players on bad teams, extreme teams (all hitting or all defense), etc. Great stuff.

The fourth section is like Baseball Enyclopedia -- a listing of win shares for every team in baseball history, with detailed breakdowns for certain players. If you're fond of finding out who was the most valuable player on the 1982 Brewers or whether Don Sutton really WAS that good, you'll have fun. But if the baseball encyclopedia or baseballreference.com don't fascinate you, this won't either.

I feel I should defend this book from some criticism. Just because James' conclusions don't mesh with your prejudices doesn't make him wrong. James statement that baseball is 37% pitching will surprise some -- until you realize that pitching AND defense combined for 52%. Someone's got to catch the ball. The numbers don't lie on this one -- they are very clear and his win share system does predict the actual W-L record of teams very well. As for comparison of players . . . well, Jeff Conine WAS better than Troy Glaus -- in 2001. Conine played in a pitcher's park with a terrible offense. Glaus played in a hitter's park on a decent offense. But that's the beauty of win shares. If you look at their careers, Glaus is clearly the better player and has a MUCH brighter future, even if Conine was marginally better during his career year. The system is fair in evaluating players in different ballparks, different eras and on different teams.

For the die-hard stathead, this book is very good. For the more casual fan, I recommend the Historical Abstract. You'll find it an easier and more entertaining read.

Rating:
Summary: Nice companion to James' Historical Abstract
Review: Bill James presents his new player rating system in gory detail.
The Win Shares rating system was the basis for his player rankings in the New Historical Abstract.

James always seems a step ahead of everyone else when it comes to baseball analysis. The players' performance in a season is summarized by an integer number representing three times the number of wins a player contributed to his team. For instance Barry Bonds scored a 54 for 2001 -- tied for the third best season according to James.

Getting through the detailed explanation of the system (over one hundred pages) takes time. I wish it had been condensed some more. The fun begins when James uses his results to ask questions such as "Which players deserved postseason awards?"
or to compare players over different eras like Carl Yastrzemski and Chuck Klein.

Another emphasis in this book is on fielding stats. James spends a lot of time picking apart Total Baseball's fielding ratings and then attempting to prove his system is better.

There is also a 500-page reference section showing Win Share results for players on every major league team since 1876, career progressions for top players, career and single-season leaders, etc. Overall, a nice companion to the new Historical Abstract and Total Baseball.

Rating:
Summary: Saber-Masterpiece
Review: Bill James' Win Shares is the quintessence of baseball sabermetrics. Although he doesn't call the Win Shares method an end-all way to rate players, I disagree. This method is by far the best way to look and players over the years and see how they match up. What I like most about Win Shares is that it takes basic mathematics and uses it for logical formulas that are easy to hands. If you love baseball, especially baseball statistics, you gotta grab this one.

Rating:
Summary: Saber-Masterpiece
Review: Bill James' Win Shares is the quintessence of baseball sabermetrics. Although he doesn't call the Win Shares method an end-all way to rate players, I disagree. This method is by far the best way to look and players over the years and see how they match up. What I like most about Win Shares is that it takes basic mathematics and uses it for logical formulas that are easy to hands. If you love baseball, especially baseball statistics, you gotta grab this one.