Ever Hear of Fred Newman?

by Rev Halofan on Oct 26, 2008 12:22 AM PDT

I am working on the NEW Top 100 Angels Series to begin Friday and Rob McMillin was kind enough to send me a calculation of the Top 100 Angels using the Win-Shares method (a complex sabremetric measurement developed by Bill James and refined by Dave Studeman). This calculates offense, longevity and defense into the equation and had some surprising results. Angels I stupidly left off the list, like Mickey Rivers, were there, as were some recent Angels not then making an impact (the list was published in the offseason following 2005).

More than 20 Angels I included on the list were not on the Top 100 Angel WinShares list. For example, Bo Belinsky got the team headlines galore for a few seasons in the early 1960s and he pitched the first no-hitter in franchise history - he was the face of the young franchise and added to the team's glory... but Bo did not compile a lot of Win-Shares. Brad Fullmer, in the high 90s of my Top 100 for his integral role in the offense of the 2002 World Champion Angels - nowhere on the WinShares List.

Conversely, Angels I disregarded like Ramon Ortiz and Rudy May were not only on the WinShares list, they were in the top 70!

But the last thing I thought i would find was an Angel who I had never heard of (!!!)-- but there he is, sitting at # 96 on the Angels All-Time WinShares list, the late FRED NEWMAN who, according to the Bill James measurement of baseball greatness, was the 96th greatest Angel in compiling WinShares in franchise history.

The 100 Top Angels List that will premiere Friday will consider statistical achievements, but a player who is steeped in franchise lore will certainly have that poetry quantified into his final tally.

Tweet Comment 8 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

by Tina Yothers on Oct 26, 2008 12:28 AM PDT reply actions

Hello Newwwman

Use to hear the my old man talk about this guy but never really new much except for a few things a fellow worker Ed Sukla use to share about him.

Here is a little more info on Newwwman
http://1965topps.blogspot.com/2008/04/101-fred-newman.html

Willie Mays Aikens is FREeeeeeeee

by Angel Aviator on Oct 26, 2008 9:47 AM PDT reply actions

we should compile a list of unknown Angels....

….speaking of which, since you are well versed in ex Angel names….remember Renee Gonzalez Revster??? LOL….now that guy I remember because he was part of the 90’s teams that absolutely sucked!…but there i was glued to the TV rootin’ for them schmucks…LOL!

If I hear the word "red sox"...POW!!! RIGHT IN THE KISSER!!!

by Halofanatic on Oct 26, 2008 12:38 PM PDT reply actions

That list is looooooong.

I’ll go first: Ike Hampton. Think Jeff Mathis, but able to suck from BOTH sides of the plate.

Francisco Rodriguez: 2006 to Present: 149 saves. 5 Panthers. As fabulous as Pride, Romero, Gregg, Budde and Dino Ebel combined.

by Stirrups on Oct 29, 2008 12:24 AM PDT up reply actions

WS

Win Shares are not exactly the end all and be all stat. Average (or below average) players who play a lot pile up nice totals. When Bill releases his Loss Shares statistic, that will be the more complete picture.

For pitchers you can use Win Shares and actual losses as a won-loss record, and that works very well (even for relievers).

For batters, you need to somehow adjust for outs made. Also, excellent base runners with great runs scored totals are underrated in Win Shares by a bit.

by elricsi on Oct 26, 2008 2:06 PM PDT reply actions

No, they're not

and this list isn’t by any means comprehensive, either. At the time I fired off this list over the weekend, I had only hand-adjusted for 2008 win shares as presented on The Hardball Times. Basically, if you had under 10 Win Shares forget it, the justification being that those guys aren’t going to either (a) change anybody’s position on the top 40 (what I was orignally looking at), or (b) materially affect ordering in general.

I’m not claiming by any stretch that this list should be conclusive, but I do bring it up as a starting point. For one thing, it caught what was in hindsight a fairly glaring error by the Rev in the first version of the Top 100 list, the omission of Mickey Rivers. Emotionally, I understand that there’s a desire to put Scott Spiezio on the list just because of that Game 6 three-run bomb, and I’m okay with that. We can argue about placement and the inclusion of guys past 50th place (heck, once you get much past 40, the list starts getting questionable). Let the fun begin!

Witty .sig goes here.

by scareduck on Oct 27, 2008 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions