100 WAR

[happybat4]

I see so many legends of the game with 100+ WAR, but it seems to be more rare. Trout might have a chance, but is the 100+ WAR era over? I see many players that are great, but it's hard to believe they will get to 100 WAR.

[wopphil]

I saw this thread topic and immediately thought “what do we need in order to be competitive next year?” 

[Angelsjunky]

12 hours ago, happybat4 said:

I see so many legends of the game with 100+ WAR, but it seems to be more rare. Trout might have a chance, but is the 100+ WAR era over? I see many players that are great, but it's hard to believe they will get to 100 WAR.

In a worst-case scenario, Trout will limp across the 100 WAR threshold. He's at 85.1 (fWAR) and even with his crappy last few seasons has accumulated 13.7 WAR in 2021-23. As I wrote in a long post, the pessimistic outlook is that he finishes in the 100-110 WAR range, but I think he's got a good chance at the 110-120 range with a couple bounce-back seasons, or at least a few more like 2022. The optimistic outlook is that he has a nice spell of health and surpasses 120 before he's through.

And no, I don't think the 100 WAR era is over. While huge 11+ WAR seasons are more rare these days, with only Judge and Bonds reaching that mark since Joe Morgan, but there are still 10 WAR seasons every few years, and just as many players are having 8+ WAR seasons (about two per year on average).

We might not see a pitcher reach 100 WAR again, however, as 200 IP has becoming increasingly rare (just five guys this year) and it is hard to get to 100 WAR on 180 IP seasons. But there are only eight 100 WAR pitchers, so it isn't that big a deal. Verlander is 17th all-time with 81.3, Kershaw 26th at 75.8, and Scherzer 29th at 72.5.

Back to position players, I think Mookie Betts has a chance at 100 WAR. He's at 58.6 now and finished up his age 30 season, so needs 41.4 to get there. That's a tall order for a guy in his early 30s, but quite possible - especially because he seems to be aging well. But he's going to need another handful of peak seasons to get there, but he's the type of player that I could see being very good into his mid-30s.

Too soon to say on Acuna, but he's obviously a candidate. He's at 26.7 through age 25. If 2023 is his new level, he will be close to 60 WAR as he enters his 30s. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

2 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Too soon to say on Acuna, but he's obviously a candidate. He's at 26.7 through age 25. If 2023 is his new level, he will be close to 60 WAR as he enters his 30s. 

So Acuna should likely reach 100 WAR sometime in his late 90's.

[happybat4]

Even for Betts 100 WAR seems pretty far fetched.

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

If this becomes hard to attain, is it an inflated stat or flawed in value?

if betts can product like an MVP and win rings with LA or Freeman, or Acuña can dominate the league for many years, is it less about WAR and what they do? 

[Angelsjunky]

12 hours ago, happybat4 said:

Even for Betts 100 WAR seems pretty far fetched.

Yes, it is a long-shot - but a non-negligible one; after Trout, I'd say he has the best chance to reach 100 WAR, which is why I mentioned him. I don't know, but maybe a 10-20% chance, I'd say.

He's at 58.6 so needs 41.4 (BR is more charitable, giving him 64.1 so only needs 35.9). He's going to be 31 and is under contract with the Dodgers for nine more years. He's averaged almost 6 WAR a season so far, so if he continues doing that for the next five years, he's close to 90 WAR with age 36-39 left in his contract, needing to average 3 WAR for those last four years. 

Anyhow, players at 30 years old tend to range widely, in terms of rest-of-career value. On one hand you have someone like Andruw Jones who finished his age 30 season with 64.3 WAR and only added 2.7 more (Griffey is similar). On the other hand, you have guys like Willie Mays, who doubled his 73.6 WAR.

On the other hand, only 22 position players have had >41.4 WAR after their age 30 seasons, so it isn't exactly common to compile that much from 31 on. But Betts is hardly a common player. He's already 9th in RFer JAWS, tied with Harry Heilmann and just behind Reggie Jackson -- that's better than Larry Walker, Tony Gwynn, and Ichiro Suzuki:

1. Ruth 123.5
2. Aaron 101.6
3. Musial 96.6
4. Ott 82.4
5. Robinson 80.1
6. Clemente 74.6
7. Kaline 70.8
8. Jackson 60.4
9. Betts 59.7
10. Heilmann 59.7

My guess is that he finishes his career somewhere better than Kaline and worse than Musial, so in the 4-7 range. If he adds 30 more WAR, that gets him past Clemente.

 

[happybat4]

But why were there many more 100 WAR players in earlier eras? I can imagine it being that the worst players today are better than the worst players 50 years ago. But I don't really know.

[Mark68]

We've probably been in 100 wars since WWII...

 

So...

 

[Angelsfan1984]

54 minutes ago, happybat4 said:

But why were there many more 100 WAR players in earlier eras? I can imagine it being that the worst players today are better than the worst players 50 years ago. But I don't really know.

Because they got 1 WAR just for walking 15 miles uphill both ways to the stadium each and every game.  back in my day you could buy a pack of WAR for like 5 cents. 
 

Ted Williams accumulated 4 years worth of WAR in his prime. 

 

[Angelsjunky]

1 hour ago, happybat4 said:

But why were there many more 100 WAR players in earlier eras? I can imagine it being that the worst players today are better than the worst players 50 years ago. But I don't really know.

Let's investigate. Hhere are the number of 100 WAR hitters by what decade they started playing in:

1870s: 0

1880s: 0

1890s: 2

1900s: 3

1910s: 2

1920s: 3

1930s: 1

1940s: 2

1950s: 4

1960s: 0

1970s: 2

1980s: 1

1990s: 1

2000s: 0

2010s: 0 (so far; Trout is likely with Mookie less likely but possible)

So you're right, it has gone down - from 2.4 per decade from 1890s to 1950s, to 0.8 per decade from 1960s-2000s.

The only hitters to start playing in the 1960s or later who have reached 100 WAR are Mike Schmidt, Rickey Henderson, Barry Bonds, and Alex Rodriguez, and only Bonds is above 113.7 WAR (A-Rod's career total).

There are more overall guys in the 70-99 WAR range from the 50s on, which is partially due to a larger player pool, while at the same time yearly WAR totals contracted. For example, after Morgan in 1975, no hitter had an 11 WAR season until Bonds in the 2000s, and then Judge last year. So fewer outlier stats at the top. Contrast this with the 1920s, when Ruth and Hornsby were so much better than everyone else, until Gehrig and then Foxx came along. 

Interestingly enough, six of the eight pitchers with 100 WAR started in the 1960s-80s. I'm guessing this is because more and more emphasis was put on strikeouts and reduced walks, which WAR likes. It is even more pronounced in the 70+ WAR club; no more than two per year started up through the 1950s; in the 1960s alone, there were eight pitchers. Just one in the 70s, then six in the 80s. But it contracted again as innings went down, and we have only two in the 90s and three in the 2000s. No pitcher who started in the 2010s looks like they're on pace for even 70 WAR (Verlander, Scherzer, and Kershaw seem like the last, and they all started the decade before).

But back to your question about why there were more 100+ WAR guys in earlier eras than now, I'm not entire sure. Maybe stat contraction is part of it, maybe something to do with aging. We can see players like Albert Pujols and Ken Griffey Jr, both of whom, in their late 20s, looked like they were going to reach 100 WAR, but then collapsed around 30-31 years old. Alex Rodriguez liked like he might join the 130 WAR club, but had his last great year at age 31 and was more of a borderline star for a few years after, then was just so-so from age 36 on.

Or if we look at the top players by WAR after turning 30, while Bonds leads the way he's an outlier. You have to get to #11 (Mike Schmidt) to find a guy who played in the 80s or later. Of players with 50+ WAR age 30 and later, only 3 of 16 (Bonds, Schmidt, Morgan) played in the 80s or later.

All of which is to say that I think some re-adjustment makes sense, but only really on the high-end--the outlier seasons and careers. I personally treat everything over 10 WAR similarly. The number of 10 WAR seasons hasn't gone down that much, but 11+ WAR seasons have. 

Similarly with career totals. As I said, Bonds is the only guy who played in the 80s with over 115 WAR. That's almost 45 years.

 

 

[Angelsfan1984]

11 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Let's investigate. Hhere are the number of 100 WAR hitters by what decade they started playing in:

1870s: 0

1880s: 0

1890s: 2

1900s: 3

1910s: 2

1920s: 3

1930s: 1

1940s: 2

1950s: 4

1960s: 0

1970s: 2

1980s: 1

1990s: 1

2000s: 0

2010s: 0 (so far; Trout is likely with Mookie less likely but possible)

So you're right, it has gone down - from 2.4 per decade from 1890s to 1950s, to 0.8 per decade from 1960s-2000s.

The only hitters to start playing in the 1960s or later who have reached 100 WAR are Mike Schmidt, Rickey Henderson, Barry Bonds, and Alex Rodriguez, and only Bonds is above 113.7 WAR (A-Rod's career total).

There are more overall guys in the 70-99 WAR range from the 50s on, which is partially due to a larger player pool, while at the same time yearly WAR totals contracted. For example, after Morgan in 1975, no hitter had an 11 WAR season until Bonds in the 2000s, and then Judge last year. So fewer outlier stats at the top. Contrast this with the 1920s, when Ruth and Hornsby were so much better than everyone else, until Gehrig and then Foxx came along. 

Interestingly enough, six of the eight pitchers with 100 WAR started in the 1960s-80s. I'm guessing this is because more and more emphasis was put on strikeouts and reduced walks, which WAR likes. It is even more pronounced in the 70+ WAR club; no more than two per year started up through the 1950s; in the 1960s alone, there were eight pitchers. Just one in the 70s, then six in the 80s. But it contracted again as innings went down, and we have only two in the 90s and three in the 2000s. No pitcher who started in the 2010s looks like they're on pace for even 70 WAR (Verlander, Scherzer, and Kershaw seem like the last, and they all started the decade before).

But back to your question about why there were more 100+ WAR guys in earlier eras than now, I'm not entire sure. Maybe stat contraction is part of it, maybe something to do with aging. We can see players like Albert Pujols and Ken Griffey Jr, both of whom, in their late 20s, looked like they were going to reach 100 WAR, but then collapsed around 30-31 years old. Alex Rodriguez liked like he might join the 130 WAR club, but had his last great year at age 31 and was more of a borderline star for a few years after, then was just so-so from age 36 on.

Or if we look at the top players by WAR after turning 30, while Bonds leads the way he's an outlier. You have to get to #11 (Mike Schmidt) to find a guy who played in the 80s or later. Of players with 50+ WAR age 30 and later, only 3 of 16 (Bonds, Schmidt, Morgan) played in the 80s or later.

All of which is to say that I think some re-adjustment makes sense, but only really on the high-end--the outlier seasons and careers. I personally treat everything over 10 WAR similarly. The number of 10 WAR seasons hasn't gone down that much, but 11+ WAR seasons have. 

Similarly with career totals. As I said, Bonds is the only guy who played in the 80s with over 115 WAR. That's almost 45 years.

 

 

So you’re saying sandy dingleberry shouldn’t have gotten 100 war back in 1897 while taking pitches from a raccoon with rabies? 

[Angelsfan1984]

11 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Let's investigate. Hhere are the number of 100 WAR hitters by what decade they started playing in:

1870s: 0

1880s: 0

1890s: 2

1900s: 3

1910s: 2

1920s: 3

1930s: 1

1940s: 2

1950s: 4

1960s: 0

1970s: 2

1980s: 1

1990s: 1

2000s: 0

2010s: 0 (so far; Trout is likely with Mookie less likely but possible)

So you're right, it has gone down - from 2.4 per decade from 1890s to 1950s, to 0.8 per decade from 1960s-2000s.

The only hitters to start playing in the 1960s or later who have reached 100 WAR are Mike Schmidt, Rickey Henderson, Barry Bonds, and Alex Rodriguez, and only Bonds is above 113.7 WAR (A-Rod's career total).

There are more overall guys in the 70-99 WAR range from the 50s on, which is partially due to a larger player pool, while at the same time yearly WAR totals contracted. For example, after Morgan in 1975, no hitter had an 11 WAR season until Bonds in the 2000s, and then Judge last year. So fewer outlier stats at the top. Contrast this with the 1920s, when Ruth and Hornsby were so much better than everyone else, until Gehrig and then Foxx came along. 

Interestingly enough, six of the eight pitchers with 100 WAR started in the 1960s-80s. I'm guessing this is because more and more emphasis was put on strikeouts and reduced walks, which WAR likes. It is even more pronounced in the 70+ WAR club; no more than two per year started up through the 1950s; in the 1960s alone, there were eight pitchers. Just one in the 70s, then six in the 80s. But it contracted again as innings went down, and we have only two in the 90s and three in the 2000s. No pitcher who started in the 2010s looks like they're on pace for even 70 WAR (Verlander, Scherzer, and Kershaw seem like the last, and they all started the decade before).

But back to your question about why there were more 100+ WAR guys in earlier eras than now, I'm not entire sure. Maybe stat contraction is part of it, maybe something to do with aging. We can see players like Albert Pujols and Ken Griffey Jr, both of whom, in their late 20s, looked like they were going to reach 100 WAR, but then collapsed around 30-31 years old. Alex Rodriguez liked like he might join the 130 WAR club, but had his last great year at age 31 and was more of a borderline star for a few years after, then was just so-so from age 36 on.

Or if we look at the top players by WAR after turning 30, while Bonds leads the way he's an outlier. You have to get to #11 (Mike Schmidt) to find a guy who played in the 80s or later. Of players with 50+ WAR age 30 and later, only 3 of 16 (Bonds, Schmidt, Morgan) played in the 80s or later.

All of which is to say that I think some re-adjustment makes sense, but only really on the high-end--the outlier seasons and careers. I personally treat everything over 10 WAR similarly. The number of 10 WAR seasons hasn't gone down that much, but 11+ WAR seasons have. 

Similarly with career totals. As I said, Bonds is the only guy who played in the 80s with over 115 WAR. That's almost 45 years.

 

 

Although I would guesstimate that the win above replacement was much easier to come by when the whole of the league wasn’t as talented? 

[Angelsjunky]

2 hours ago, Angelsfan1984 said:

So you’re saying sandy dingleberry shouldn’t have gotten 100 war back in 1897 while taking pitches from a raccoon with rabies? 

Sorta. I don't think it is a matter of should or shouldn't; WAR is WAR, and relative to the level of play. Can Anson (1871-1897) earned his 91.2 WAR, the most of any player in the 19th century. But of course it was a very different context, and he didn't have to face Eric Gagne Jr or Justin Verlander.

2 hours ago, Angelsfan1984 said:

Although I would guesstimate that the win above replacement was much easier to come by when the whole of the league wasn’t as talented? 

Again, WAR is always relative to the level of play. So a 10 WAR player in 2022 is just as good--relative to the field--as a 10 WAR player in 1922 (that is, they are just as much more valuable relative to a replacement player). The same with wRC+ or OPS+ -- it is relative to the league average of 100. But consider the difference between who Babe Ruth faced vs who Mike Trout faced:

Ruth: 7 other teams, only white players, most pitchers pitching the whole game.

Trout: Up to 29 other teams, international and multi-ethnic players, tons of relief pitchers.

Not to mention increased velocity and, in theory, higher talent level overall, which makes margins slimmer. Trout's context was more difficult - with a wider and deeper pool of talent, and facing many more unique pitchers. This goes back to why we haven't seen anyone hit .400 in 82 years. Some of this is a shift in the way the game is played (e.g. power is higher than ever, with the median regular hitting about 20 HR a year now), but I think also has to do with "stat consolidation" - numbers are more tightly packed together, with fewer outliers.

Ruth and players of his generation feasted on a much smaller pool of pitchers, who they faced a lot more frequently. Whereas Trout might have to face Verlander and then two relievers with very different stuff, Ruth would face Bubba McDoogie for all 9 innings. Of course he faced top pitchers as well

Or to put it into numbers, consider that over the course of his career of 2503 games, Ruth faced 428 pitchers at least once, 183 pitchers at least 10 times, 64 pitchers at least 50 times, and 24 pitchers at least 100 times.

In 1489 games, Trout has faced 1084 pitchers at least once, 193 pitchers at least 10 times, and 7 pitches at least 50 times, no pitchers 100 times.

Overall that's 0.17 unique pitchers per game for Ruth, 0.73 unique pitchers for Trout - meaning, Trout faced 4.3 times as many unique pitchers, on a per game basis and he didn't face the same pitchers as many times as Ruth did. Or to put it another way, in 10627 PA, Ruth faced 428 pitchers, averaging 24.8 PA per pitcher For Trout, it is 1084 pitchers in 6521 PA, or an average of 6 PA per pitcher. 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Angelsjunky