PCA Request Line

[RuthMayBond]

Not sure why you would say that...but you most certainly can measure exactly what quantifiable impact a pitcher had on his defense when the ball was in play. It won't ever be PERFECT.

I like this

[SABR Matt]

I like this

There is no contradiction there. I can measure with very close precision the QUANTIFIABLE impact a pitcher had on his defense. What I cannot measure is the unquantifiable elements...I can't tell you whether the defense really was exactly as good as they looked at the team level or whether the team had an army of pitchers who happened to be skilled at preventing ball in play hits (a long shot, but, for example, the mid-90s Braves may have been just such a team and their defenses may be overrated as a result)...I can't tell you things that aren't in the PBP record (like, for example, whether the pitcher actually had a knack for inducing less harmful trajectories on his BIP events than normal...not all singles are the same, but that is the assumption I have to make in the absence of trajectory data).

But, as Tom Tango is famous for saying, the method (DNRA) is in fact perfect at doing exactly what it does...I have essentially completely captured the QUANTIFIABLE impacts of pitchers on their defenses. The system is not, therefore, PERFECT...but it is accurate. And I see you're still the same onld RMB.

[SABR Matt]

AstrosFan (or anyone else)...can you provide me with a link that has the complete list of eligible candidates fort the HOF this year? I'll look at the ranks tonight.

[RuthMayBond]

And I see you're still the same onld RMB.Fortunately, you're still your same old charming self

[SABR Matt]

Fortunately, you're still your same old charming self

I'd just like to point out to anyone reading that I was not the one who decided to be "clever" here.

[AstrosFan]

AstrosFan (or anyone else)...can you provide me with a link that has the complete list of eligible candidates fort the HOF this year? I'll look at the ranks tonight.

This has the players and their votes+percentages for this year's election.

http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2011/01/05/hall-of-fame-voting-results-2011/

[Honus Wagner Rules]

How does Willie McCovey's 1969 season rate according to PCA?

[SABR Matt]

I have McCovey's 1969 season as being worth 16.1 offensive and 1.0 defensive wins...a total of 28.4 marker points...by far his best season...about on par with a typical season from, say, Willie Mays...though he came to it differently (more offense, less defense).

[SABR Matt]

Raul Mondesi - LOL no
Charles Johnson - LOL no
Bobby Higginson - LOL no
Kirk Reuter - LOL no
Lenny Harris - Seriously? LOL
Carlos Baerga - LOL no
Benito Santiago - LOL no
Bret Boone - LOL no

and here's where it starts to get a bit more interesting

BJ Surhoff - no (88 marker wins...not the greatest)

John Olerud - Amongst first basemen, he ranks 22nd with 304 marker wins...he's in the same class as Mark Grace and Norm Cash...do you think those guys are HOFers? I don't...but he's a bubble candidate. Still no

Al Leiter - 110 career DNRA+...and only a shade over 2000 IP...that's a firm no (63 marker wins is more confirmation of the no)

Marquis Grissom - 117.27 HOF Marker...about 45th all time in CF - no way Jose (that despite his genrally outstanding glovework)

Tino Martinez - 114 Makrer wins at first base is good for 58th all time...Yankee fans loved him...he had some nice years...but the peak was too short and the production too mundane to get him even close - no

Kevin Brown - Unpopular as they come, but Brownie would make my list with his 7th all time ranking in DNRA+ (129) and his 3000 innings pitched. Yeah...that's a SLAM DUNK HOF bid.

John Franco - 117 career DNRA in about 1000 innings...that may sound good...but...for a reliever, it's really...really lame. N. O. NO

Harold Baines - 155 Marker points for a guy who officially qualifies as a RFer is a big no. Even if you group him amongst guys you associate with DH'ing...he comes in about 6th on the marker list...and we're having enough time getting the guy who is far and away in first (Edgar Martinez) elected. NO

Juan Gonzalez - 114 marker points...and NEGATIVE marker points for defense...yeah...NO

Rafael Palmeiro - 249 marker points and 5th place on the all time first base list...your choice here depends on how you feel about steroid abuse...he's a big YES for me...but I don't consider steroid use to be much of a crime in the grand scheme of things. YMMV

Dale Murphy - 17th on the CF leaderboard with 184 marker points...but he's in a tight cluster of other CFers, including guys like Fielder Jones, Mike Griffin, Tommy Leach, Vada Pinson, Jimmy Wynn...are those guys all HOFers to you? Because they're all about equal in value and merit. This guy's a bubble candidate if there ever was one. A grudging NO for me.

Don Mattingly - 34th all time at first base...if his back hadn't exploded, he couldhave been a contender...but if ifs and buts were candy and nuts...big fat NO

Dave Parker - 183 marker wins for a primarily RF-bound guy with a very solid glove...rather like Tony Oliva, he's only in if you highly value defense. For me's a borderline NO

Fred McGriff - For a guy supposedly gifted with the leather, McGriff's 17 marker points for D aren't helping him much. Still, he manages to clear 200 marker wins and get into 15th place all time at first...that's good for a borderline YES from me

Mark McGwire - Andro != Satan in a bottle. However, McGwire's injury tattered early career and earl exit from the game make him the poster-boy for peak vs. longevity debates. The Marker tries to balance the two and places big Mac in 11th all time amongst 1B with 229 marker points...good for a YES from me.

Larry Walker - 12th all time in RF...this despite his career being pretty short compared to his contemporaries...the other outstanding question is...how much did Coors Field influence his numbers...based on his performance at other stops, I'd say...not much...at least not in a way that isn't already adjusted for with proper context adjustments. I think he's a solid YES

Alan Trammell - Ranks ahead of Lou Boudreau, Pee Wee Reese, Herman Long and Joe TInker...all of whom are HOFers...that makes him a YES for me despite the fact atht, as a hitte,r he was consistent, but unsexy.

Edgar Martinez - Despite "only being half a player" (if you believe the morons at ESPN), Edgar managers to rack up 136 offensive wins (good for 212 marker points)...if he's half a player...some of these full players should be embarrassed. PLEASE! This isn't even hard...he's not even close to the bubble...he's a slam dunk first ballot stud muffin and the only reaosn he's not in the hall already is that national league writers are all prejudiced against a position he played in good faith and within the rules of the game. While they're busily electing relievers like Lee Smith into the HOF...half a pitcher!!...Edgar Martinez waits for days when people aren't quite so unfair.

Tim Raines - Why he doesn't get more love astounds me. This guy is also an absolute slam dunk. He actually ranks ahead of Pete Rose amongst the left fielders...and right behind Clarke, Delahanty, and...yep...Carl freakin' Yastrzemski. He is now among the leaders in "most screwed over by stupid writers"

Jeff Bagwell - Right around the neighborhood Johnny Mize and Willie McCovey...that would be a YES. :)

Lee Smith - WTF is Lee Smith doing this high in the voting? Can someone please explain that to me? OK...as reliever candidates go, he's a good one...126 DNRA+...right around Kent Tekulve's line...but...c'mon...let's get our priorities straight...who should get in first...the friggin' closer? Or the highly ranked slugging first baseman? Still a YES...but the voters are still idiots.

Jack Morris - *heavy disgusted sigh* NO NO NO NOOOO!!! DNRA+ of 105...I know I know...he's teh clutch!!!! MONEY!!!! AWWWWW YEAAHH!!! *headSLAMdesk* This is a real litmus test for whether you believe that a pitcher can have the special capacity to rise above other great players only in crucial moments and whether, even if that happened, that would be a good thing for a guy like Morris (wouldn't that be a sign of laziness? only pitching up for the big games? don't you want his best as often as he can give it to you?). Sorry...but this guy friggin' SUCKS relative to other HOFers...he has no place anywhere near this discussion.

Barry Larkin: This isn't even close. finished his career in 9th on the SS list and has since been passed by A-Rod...who may wind up shifting over to third base. He's in. Probably next year.

I'm glad Blyleven and Almoar got in...both of them deserved it..though I think it's ridiculous that Alomar got in so early based on the perception that's a legit front line defensive player as well as a great hitter. His defense was mediocre at best...and terrible from about 1996 on. Oy.

So there you have it. I invite conversation on all fronts. :)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Matt,

Any revisions to your previously posted PCA numbers/comments on Ruth's pitching, hitting, or fielding? If so, posting on The Babe Ruth Thread would be appreciated.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Hi Matt,

Can you post Fred McGriff's seasonal PCA. Thanks!

[brett]

Matt, I was going to ask you who you see as a better fielder: Babe Ruth or Barry Bonds.

Also, how was Tulowitszi's defense last year? Does he look like a potential all time great defensive SS or just a good one?

[AstrosFan]

Matt, just wanted to give you a much belated thank you for delivering your thoughts on the most recent Hall of Fame voting. I had been paying scant attention to this subforum until recently, and did not notice your response.

[SABR Matt]

Matt, just wanted to give you a much belated thank you for delivering your thoughts on the most recent Hall of Fame voting. I had been paying scant attention to this subforum until recently, and did not notice your response.

Hey AF...always enjoy sharing opinions when I feel I have some valid reason for doing so. :) I am curious how many of those you disagreed with. LOL

[SABR Matt]

Matt, I was going to ask you who you see as a better fielder: Babe Ruth or Barry Bonds.

Also, how was Tulowitszi's defense last year? Does he look like a potential all time great defensive SS or just a good one?

I think Barry Bonds was the superior fielder overall because his skill set lasted longer (he continued to be unusually fast well into his mid 30s)...though PCA does think Ruth has the better peak season...I'm not sold enough on the early-baseball fielding ratings to believe a 0.3 win difference is significant though.

Tulo seems to have settled into solidly above average territory on most of the fieldig metrics and PCA seems to be on the high side of the sabermetric ensemble envelop (to steal a term from my real profession - meteorology). PCA back-of-the-envelop calcs say Tulo has been worth:

2007: 6.2 (!!) defensive wins
2008: 2.4 (injury issues slowed him down) but prorates to 3.4
2009: 4.3
2010: 4.0 (but prorates to 4.9)

UZR sees Tulo as consistently above average ignoring the freak 2007 +15 year.

So...PCA is more internally consistent, but UZR is based on more sophisticated ingest data. Take your pick as to which you believe.

[SABR Matt]

Hi Matt,

Can you post Fred McGriff's seasonal PCA. Thanks!

Fred McGriff's seasonal Marker Card by PCA:

Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1989 AL 13.79 2.03 23.3 2.5 15.82
1990 AL 12.32 2.31 20.5 3.2 14.63
1988 AL 10.08 1.96 16.2 2.5 12.04
1991 NL 10.19 0.74 16.3 0.0 10.93
1999 AL 9.91 0.31 15.9 -0.6 10.22
1993 NL 8.94 0.86 13.9 0.3 9.80
1994 NL 8.57 0.76 14.1 0.4 9.33
1992 NL 9.14 0.13 14.3 -1.2 9.27
1995 NL 4.82 3.00 5.8 4.6 7.82
1996 NL 5.75 1.93 7.1 2.3 7.68
2002 NL 5.90 0.67 8.0 0.1 6.57
2001 AL 5.82 0.69 9.2 0.7 6.51
2000 AL 5.78 -0.19 7.4 -1.8 5.59
1997 NL 4.48 0.81 4.9 0.2 5.29
1998 AL 4.05 0.32 4.0 -0.7 4.37
1987 AL 4.04 0.24 5.8 0.4 4.28
2001 NL 2.00 0.32 2.7 0.2 2.32
2003 NL 1.82 0.07 1.6 -0.6 1.89

Crime Dog was overrated on defense in the aggregate, though he did have a few good years mixed in. The real problem with McGriff is that he mysteriously lost his power about half way through his career and, other than a couple of late bounce-back seasons (1999, e.g.), he was far less of a run producer than is commonly perceived. He's a borderline HOF candidate even with that caveat though.

[brett]

I think Barry Bonds was the superior fielder overall because his skill set lasted longer (he continued to be unusually fast well into his mid 30s)...though PCA does think Ruth has the better peak season...I'm not sold enough on the early-baseball fielding ratings to believe a 0.3 win difference is significant though.

Tulo seems to have settled into solidly above average territory on most of the fieldig metrics and PCA seems to be on the high side of the sabermetric ensemble envelop (to steal a term from my real profession - meteorology). PCA back-of-the-envelop calcs say Tulo has been worth:

2007: 6.2 (!!) defensive wins
2008: 2.4 (injury issues slowed him down) but prorates to 3.4
2009: 4.3
2010: 4.0 (but prorates to 4.9)

UZR sees Tulo as consistently above average ignoring the freak 2007 +15 year.

So...PCA is more internally consistent, but UZR is based on more sophisticated ingest data. Take your pick as to which you believe.

Thanks Matt. What is an average number of wins per 162 for a SS again? is 4.9 per 162 like last year on the borderline of a gold glove level?

[AstrosFan]

Hey AF...always enjoy sharing opinions when I feel I have some valid reason for doing so. :) I am curious how many of those you disagreed with. LOL

Reliever qualifications are always murky, so I'm not sure about Smith. Seems he has the best case of any eligible reliever, but whether that means he should be in the Hall is a different question. McGriff is a borderline one for me. I waver on him. Other than that, I'm right with you.

[SABR Matt]

Thanks Matt. What is an average number of wins per 162 for a SS again? is 4.9 per 162 like last year on the borderline of a gold glove level?

Average is 3.0 W/162 G...and the level for a gold glove varies from year to year depending on the available talent, but the average gold glover gets a prorated 5.2 W/162

[SABR Matt]

Reliever qualifications are always murky, so I'm not sure about Smith. Seems he has the best case of any eligible reliever, but whether that means he should be in the Hall is a different question. McGriff is a borderline one for me. I waver on him. Other than that, I'm right with you.

Ah cool...yeah...the reliever thing particularly annoys me wrt Edgar Martinez. People have NO PROBLEM electing Mariano Rivera or Lee Smith or similar to the HOF, but then say Edgar is "half a player" and dismiss him. *waves middle finger at BBWAA*

[brett]

Average is 3.0 W/162 G...and the level for a gold glove varies from year to year depending on the available talent, but the average gold glover gets a prorated 5.2 W/162

Thanks. Supposedly he did some work on his speed this offseason, and his defensive stats LOOK like they are up a bit, 34 putouts, 60 assists and 17 double plays in 16 games. I have to admit though I have counted at least 4 times where he took a play that really probably typically would have gone to another player.

Matt, when you get a chance can you put up defensive PCA wins and average for George Brett, Wade Boggs, Eddie Mathews and Chipper Jones. I know you did them all a couple of years ago but I can't find them. Sean Smith's and "total zone" methods are shown on baseball reference and have Boggs at +95 and +105 runs above average, Mathews +32 and +40 range Chipper Jones only at -16 and -19 range Brett at +47 and +54. I think that only Brett's numbers are similar to what you get for these guys.

Also if you have the time, can you rank your top 10 third baseman all time (offense+defense together) in terms of wins and marker. People are talking about Chipper as being closing in on a top 30 all time position player now and I think they are getting the defense wrong.

Also, Matt, how would you compare Chipper Jones to Edgar Martinez. They seem to be very similar as hitters, and I think Chipper has to get something for playing third base longer. In other word, what if he had been a DH? Who's a better hitter: Piazza, Jones, Bagwell, or Edgar (what if they all got to DH primarily?)

[Matthew C.]

Thanks. Supposedly he did some work on his speed this offseason, and his defensive stats LOOK like they are up a bit, 34 putouts, 60 assists and 17 double plays in 16 games. I have to admit though I have counted at least 4 times where he took a play that really probably typically would have gone to another player.

Matt, when you get a chance can you put up defensive PCA wins and average for George Brett, Wade Boggs, Eddie Mathews and Chipper Jones. I know you did them all a couple of years ago but I can't find them. Sean Smith's and "total zone" methods are shown on baseball reference and have Boggs at +95 and +105 runs above average, Mathews +32 and +40 range Chipper Jones only at -16 and -19 range Brett at +47 and +54. I think that only Brett's numbers are similar to what you get for these guys.

Also if you have the time, can you rank your top 10 third baseman all time (offense+defense together) in terms of wins and marker. People are talking about Chipper as being closing in on a top 30 all time position player now and I think they are getting the defense wrong.

I was just saying in another thread that Chipper looks a lot better in TZ (rWAR) than he does in other metrics I have seen, thus a higher WAR than he may deserve.

One propsed reason I have heard, is that Maddux and Glavine had a really disproportionate number of balls hit to 2B, SS, and 1B vs. to 3B compared to average, and that was a lucky thing for Chipper who had less chances to "show off" his range; we know for a fact that Chipper had far fewer chances at 3B than expected. The theory is, if he had an expected distribution of balls hit to him, his zone-based fielding metrics would be worse. Of course UZR is not

[Matthew C.]

Oh yeah, Colin Weyers did a study on pitcher defense and Maddux and Glavine were the top 2 pitchers in the past 20 years in terms of nabbing balls - so there could be a ballhogging issue that prevented Chipper from seeing as many chances. Braves pitchers reducing BABIP by allowing weaker contact (by whatever degree they did so) could also have made things easier on Chipper.

[brett]

Oh yeah, Colin Weyers did a study on pitcher defense and Maddux and Glavine were the top 2 pitchers in the past 20 years in terms of nabbing balls - so there could be a ballhogging issue that prevented Chipper from seeing as many chances. Braves pitchers reducing BABIP by allowing weaker contact (by whatever degree they did so) could also have made things easier on Chipper.

Any idea why some show Boggs to have been very good after the move to NY? Is this pretty consistent? I remember that Matt said it was a myth.

[Matthew C.]

Any idea why some show Boggs to have been very good after the move to NY? Is this pretty consistent? I remember that Matt said it was a myth.

Well, I would think that changes towards the positive for an old guy would be due to... 1. PBP data bias (in UZR, DRS, etc.), 2. changes in quality of SS play next to him, 3. getting fewer chances (for a various number of reasons), 4. Park factors not accounted for by park adjustments, 5. he got better (this seems least likely)

Cbenson just showed me that Chipper had a similar path once he returned from the OF.

[SABR Matt]

Wwo...I missed all of this fascinating discussion somehow...my apologies for the lateness of my replies to some of these interesting questions.

Here is Chipper Jones' career arc by PCA (filled in after 2005 with shorthand calcs...this took me a while to finish...I *REALLY* want to make some time this summer to do an uber-update of PCA (at least get the thing calculated out to 2010 and make the basic improvements I wanted to make with incorporating PBP data, the F/S Matrix and situational fielding/baserunning analysis...I have a MATLAB license now which will make things easier on me I think).

Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1995 NL 4.79 0.74 5.8 -0.3 5.5
1996 NL 8.26 0.66 12.1 -0.6 8.9
1997 NL 6.58 0.24 8.9 -1.3 6.8
1998 NL 8.27 0.92 12.1 -0.1 9.2
1999 NL 14.89 0.36 25.4 -1.2 15.3
2000 NL 8.68 1.23 13.0 0.6 9.9
2001 NL 11.33 0.56 18.4 -0.7 11.9
2002 NL 8.83 2.52 13.5 3.2 11.4
2003 NL 7.42 0.17 10.7 -1.4 7.6
2004 NL 4.82 0.86 6.0 0.4 5.7
2005 NL 5.42 1.01 8.0 0.9 6.4
2006 NL 5.61 0.82 8.1 0.6 6.4
2007 NL 11.90 1.12 20.8 0.9 13.0
2008 NL 12.64 -0.15 22.9 -1.5 12.5
2009 NL 5.08 0.11 6.3 -1.1 5.2
2010 NL 2.99 -0.05 3.6 -0.8 2.9

PCA does see a bit of a defensive bump for Chipper after he returned from LF...FWIW, PCA thinks he was very good in left field for one year...and then horrible the next season there...so...that could have something to do with who was in center and how much they were protecting him...or it could be that Chipper legitimately slowed down that year...or perhaps the pitching staff changed enough to alter the fly ball spread coming his way? Not sure. PCA is usually a lot more stable than that.

It's worth noting that most of Chipper's fielding bump happened during a time when his hitting resurrected as well...and PCA is less bullish on the bump than TZ. He never emerges above the average line by PCA, though he does get close in one or two seasons. Other than the one good year at third in 2002, he was always a marginal fielder...his total defensive marker points are -2.4. Edgar Martinez (career) had 4.9 marker points for defense...so if you put him and Chipper on the same list and erase the defense entirely (DH = 0 defensive marker)...Edgar's total marker score would be 206.8 (Edgar) to 195.6 (Chipper). Even after 2010...Jones is still not quite the player that Edgar was. One more good year from Chipper will make them even on offense. An argument could be made, however, that Jones should get a positional adjustment because he played third base the whole time and if Edgar had done that and somehow stayed healthy, he probably would have been even worse with the glove than Chipper was. So that just goes to show you that they are very close...and if Chipper is in the hall...so should Edgar be.

[brett]

Interesting, I quickly counted up 136 wins for CJ, and I think McGriff finished with just over 140, who I have as one of my borderline HOF guys. But I think CJ tops Nettles who if I remember right was only around 110.

I wonder why if you line up the top 15 first basemen, and the top 15 third basemen, and maybe the top 15 SSs, that third basemen would tend to me lower in wins. I think you showed that third basemen and catchers average around a half a win per year below the other positions. I could see that SS's might just be better athletes on the whole, but then how do you explain first basemen? There is something, in my opinion "robbing" the careers of third basemen and C's, probably just wear and tear. Plus those positions require some skills that don't necessarily produce value. For example if a third baseman has no arm, he becomes a target.

[SABR Matt]

I think part of your problem with third basemen is that they tend to be the guys who failed to stick at short but didn't have the bat to stick at first...there could be a physical cause as well...but I have trouble seeing what that source would be,

[Matthew C.]

Matt- probably been done, but how does Traynor look with PCA? TZ has him -30 defensive runs, but Micahel Humphreys in his book Wizardry has him plus 90 runs. James and Davenport had him near +30.

[SABR Matt]

Pie Traynor rates as an above average third baseman consistently.

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
3B 1927 143 3.93 0.360
3B 1925 153 4.11 0.357
3B 1935 51 1.28 0.346
3B 1928 148 3.54 0.339
3B 1932 128 3.01 0.337
3B 1926 149 3.32 0.330
3B 1929 133 2.48 0.308
3B 1924 141 2.49 0.302
3B 1930 129 2.07 0.293
3B 1931 155 2.23 0.283
3B 1923 152 2.16 0.282
3B 1933 154 1.97 0.274
3B 1934 107 0.91 0.248
3B 1922 128 0.85 0.237

He wond 5 PCA GGs and is 12th all time in defensive marker pints at third.

That would put me closer to Humphrys than even the James grouping.

[Matthew C.]

Pie Traynor rates as an above average third baseman consistently.

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
3B 1927 143 3.93 0.360
3B 1925 153 4.11 0.357
3B 1935 51 1.28 0.346
3B 1928 148 3.54 0.339
3B 1932 128 3.01 0.337
3B 1926 149 3.32 0.330
3B 1929 133 2.48 0.308
3B 1924 141 2.49 0.302
3B 1930 129 2.07 0.293
3B 1931 155 2.23 0.283
3B 1923 152 2.16 0.282
3B 1933 154 1.97 0.274
3B 1934 107 0.91 0.248
3B 1922 128 0.85 0.237

He wond 5 PCA GGs and is 12th all time in defensive marker pints at third.

That would put me closer to Humphrys than even the James grouping.

If you and Humphreys are correct, that puts Traynor really close to a HOF player - certainly a lot closer than the sabre community has suggested in recent years. According to TZ, he wouldn't even be in the HOF stratosphere.

I wish some of the most vocal anti-sabre people would see stuff like this - a lot of advancements in sabermetrics have justified their traditionalist opinions. Over the past 3-4 years, Ichiro, Clemente, and others have gone from sabre whipping boys to sabre darlings (well, sort of).

I am not the least bit surprised that as sabermetrics advance, we are moving further from the ideal extremes ("pitchers have no control over BABIP", "clutch does not exists at all", "a pitcher has to have tons of K's to be successful", "a position player can't be a great without a good OB%", towards more moderate ideas (" pitchers have relatively very little BABIP control compared to K, BB,and HR", "clutch exists, but the impact is typically small and it takes a large sample size to find it", " a pitcher can be great with a mediocre K rate...but he has to be really good at everything else", "a lowish OB% can be overcompensated for by enough positional scarcity credit, defense, baserunning, etc."

[brett]

As for the BABIP thing, I was looking at Pete Alexander the other day. He was a very good deadball strikeout guy, but had miniscule K rates after 1920, yet he still was a good pitcher. How could a guy survive with the LB while decreasing in K rate so much? I think its clear that his sinker was an asset with regard to BABIP expecially since it was rare in its time. I'm not the best at looking at DIPS stuff though, but doesn't he demonstrate a BABIP effect due to style?

Also, is Neikro P. one of these guys? Matt rates him fairly low, WAR rates him VERY high. Is he a DNRA anomaly?

[brett]

Wwo...I missed all of this fascinating discussion somehow...my apologies for the lateness of my replies to some of these interesting questions.

and if Chipper is in the hall...so should Edgar be.

Thanks Matt. If you get some time, I'd love to see your top 15-20 third basemen. I can't find it in this thread, though I thought I saw it once. Career Offensive and Defensive wins would be nice, but also put them in your subjective order.

[SABR Matt]

You know...I think I need to break player cards up into threads by position...this thread is of course enormous and it makes it difficult to find anything I've posted. That'll be a project for me in the short term...get what I have done into readable shorter threads that are organized in some logical way.

Phil Neikro doesn't even do all that well with DNRA...I would think if he had some sylistic advantage, it would show there. DNRA does a good job seeing BABIP artists, control artists and power pitchers. I am not sure what else there is other than perhaps Neikro maybe being better at pitching with people on base than with the bases empty? That would be the kind of thing DNRA would miss and WAR (based solely on RA) would "see".

Traynor is not a HOFer by PCA...but his defense does save him from looking truly horrid. He winds up 20th on the leaderboard...right behind Bobby Bonilla and Sal Bando. But...to be even more precise...he scored 137 marker points and the next six guys ahead of him on the list have between 138 and 148 marker points...so we're not talking about a big gap between him and the HOF.

[cbenson5]

Edgar Martinez (career) had 4.9 marker points for defense...so if you put him and Chipper on the same list and erase the defense entirely (DH = 0 defensive marker)...Edgar's total marker score would be 206.8 (Edgar) to 195.6 (Chipper). Even after 2010...Jones is still not quite the player that Edgar was. One more good year from Chipper will make them even on offense. An argument could be made, however, that Jones should get a positional adjustment because he played third base the whole time and if Edgar had done that and somehow stayed healthy, he probably would have been even worse with the glove than Chipper was. So that just goes to show you that they are very close...and if Chipper is in the hall...so should Edgar be.

This is an interesting comparison. It seems that WAR paints these two men in a similar light as well. If you give both of them zero defensive runs, they both have a WAR a little above 80.00. However, WAR gives Edgar a positional adjustment of minus 140 runs. I'm not sure if 140 runs is fair, but some adjustment seems appropriate. Instead of adjusting Edgar down, one could also think in terms of giving Chipper a boost for this comparison. Off the top of my head, he has suffered three major injuries in the field. He pulled a hamstring in left field in 2004, suffered a badly sprained ankle in 2006, and tore his ACL last year. That is not to mention the day to day wear and tear that comes with playing defense. It is hard to imagine Edgar not suffering more injuries as well if he were made to stay in the field. If you give even a conservative positional adjustment, whether it be boosting Chipper or downgrading Edgar, then Chipper wins the comparison. That being said, both of them are magnificent ballplayers who belong in the hall of fame. BTW, is 200 PCA marker points roughly the equivalent of 80 WAR?

[SABR Matt]

This is an interesting comparison. It seems that WAR paints these two men in a similar light as well. If you give both of them zero defensive runs, they both have a WAR a little above 80.00. However, WAR gives Edgar a positional adjustment of minus 140 runs. I'm not sure if 140 runs is fair, but some adjustment seems appropriate. Instead of adjusting Edgar down, one could also think in terms of giving Chipper a boost for this comparison. Off the top of my head, he has suffered three major injuries in the field. He pulled a hamstring in left field in 2004, suffered a badly sprained ankle in 2006, and tore his ACL last year. That is not to mention the day to day wear and tear that comes with playing defense. It is hard to imagine Edgar not suffering more injuries as well if he were made to stay in the field. If you give even a conservative positional adjustment, whether it be boosting Chipper or downgrading Edgar, then Chipper wins the comparison. That being said, both of them are magnificent ballplayers who belong in the hall of fame. BTW, is 200 PCA marker points roughly the equivalent of 80 WAR?

Right...I would agree that playing third base is harder on the body than DHing...and that some compensation is required to make a fair comparison. Based on pure value added, Edgar beats Chipper...but accounting for the wear and tear of playing defense, you would have to take Chipper first.

The WAR baseline (replacement level) is somewhat higher than the PCA replacement level...Jones and Martinez both get about 130 wins (which is roughly equivlent to 80 WAR). Marker points are not linear with wins, however. They are a measure of both longevity and domination (found by taking for each season the wins earned minus the average winds ear and adding to the win total...thus giving you a sacle that rewards players for having a great peak nearly as aggressively as it rewards players for lasting a long time).

[cbenson5]

Thank you, Matt. I have one more quick question if you don't mind. Was Brett correct in saying that you have Fred McGriff with a similar career value to Jones and Martinez?

[SABR Matt]

Thank you, Matt. I have one more quick question if you don't mind. Was Brett correct in saying that you have Fred McGriff with a similar career value to Jones and Martinez?

McGriff came out with about the same total number of career wins as Edgar Martinez and Chipper Jones yes...he falls slightly short of both of them in marker score beacuse his peak is less impressive relative to his competition...he is nonetheless a solid bubble candidate for the HOF.

[cbenson5]

McGriff came out with about the same total number of career wins as Edgar Martinez and Chipper Jones yes...he falls slightly short of both of them in marker score beacuse his peak is less impressive relative to his competition...he is nonetheless a solid bubble candidate for the HOF.

Thank, Matt. McGriff had been a player that I tentatively supported for the Hall of Fame. After seeing his WAR score on baseball-reference, I felt that I might have been overrating him and knocked him below my borderline for the Hall. I guess some more thought is in order.

[brett]

The WAR baseline (replacement level) is somewhat higher than the PCA replacement level...Jones and Martinez both get about 130 wins (which is roughly equivlent to 80 WAR). Marker points are not linear with wins, however. They are a measure of both longevity and domination (found by taking for each season the wins earned minus the average winds ear and adding to the win total...thus giving you a sacle that rewards players for having a great peak nearly as aggressively as it rewards players for lasting a long time).


I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that 130 wins would be closer to 60 WAR. Of course it would depend on the length of the career a little.

[SABR Matt]

Not sure where you get that, brett...my baseline is .250, theirs is .357...the handicap for a full season is about 60%...not 100%. But it does depend heavily on playing time vs. production ratio to average.

[brett]

Not sure where you get that, brett...my baseline is .250, theirs is .357...the handicap for a full season is about 60%...not 100%. But it does depend heavily on playing time vs. production ratio to average.

80 WAR is an awesome slam dunk HOFer. 130 Wins is probably low borderline. I just remember George Brett was about 30th on your list with maybe 180-185 wins. He's also about 30th in WAR with 85.

Then again, based on the .250 and .357 I get a position player picking up about 1.5 wins with the lower baseline/162 That would make 80 WAR in 15 full years equal to about 102.5 wins. That's odd. Am I wrong about 1.5 wins per 162 between the 2 baselines? (though they probably give pitching more than a 26% share-I think that must be why position players pick up a little more in WAR).

34 position players have 80 or more WAR. How many have 130 wins?

[SABR Matt]

Hm. Maybe you're right. I've never actually compared the WAR counts vs. PCA, but it would seem the exchange is much greater than I thought.

Yeha...I have many more than 34 guys with 130 wins...I thik the problem is that I have position players getting more defensive wins (by far) than WAR does. The baselines I cited are basically correct, but position players win more than pitchers.

[Matthew C.]

[QUOTE=SABR Matt;1883029...I thik the problem is that I have position players getting more defensive wins (by far) than WAR does. The baselines I cited are basically correct, but position players win more than pitchers.[/QUOTE]

Bingo - I think that TZ regresses defensive runs saved to weed out fielding luck (even though Smith does not regress BABIP or HR/Fb or anything else). That could be why PCA weighs defense so much more.

I don't mind regressing some, but only regressing one aspect takes a pure "what happened on the field" stat and makes it slightly a 95% "what happened on the field stat".

[cbenson5]

80 WAR is an awesome slam dunk HOFer. 130 Wins is probably low borderline. I just remember George Brett was about 30th on your list with maybe 180-185 wins. He's also about 30th in WAR with 85.

Then again, based on the .250 and .357 I get a position player picking up about 1.5 wins with the lower baseline/162 That would make 80 WAR in 15 full years equal to about 102.5 wins. That's odd. Am I wrong about 1.5 wins per 162 between the 2 baselines? (though they probably give pitching more than a 26% share-I think that must be why position players pick up a little more in WAR).

34 position players have 80 or more WAR. How many have 130 wins?

I dug up an old post from 2008. Here are the top third basemen by PCA Marker Points:

1. Schmidt- 291.3
2. Brett- 279.8
3. Mathews- 257.4
4. Boggs- 241.3
5. Jones- 193.2 (through 2010)
6. Santo- 191.3
7. Evans- 189.2
8. Robinson- 178.1
9. Baker- 176
10. Hack- 167.7

Both WAR and PCA see Chipper as the fifth best third baseman. However, he is barely ahead of Santo in PCA and well ahead of him in WAR. I assume this is due to different interpretations of their defense. Total Zone only has Santo ahead by 40 runs. I assume the gap is wider in PCA. According to WAR, Chipper came into the season about two All-Star seasons away from Boggs. He is more like four seasons away in PCA. WAR and PCA also differ widely with George Brett. Matt mentioned that he uses a lower replacement baseline than WAR. Brett failed to add any value to his WAR during his last three years. I assume he continued to build up Marker Points during these years. Furthermore, Brett's WAR is hurt by his late move away from third base. I guess different interpretations of his defense account for the rest of the difference.

My personal top five are:

1. Schmidt
2. Mathews
3. Brett
4. Boggs
5. Jones

[brett]

Bingo - I think that TZ regresses defensive runs saved to weed out fielding luck (even though Smith does not regress BABIP or HR/Fb or anything else). That could be why PCA weighs defense so much more.

I don't mind regressing some, but only regressing one aspect takes a pure "what happened on the field" stat and makes it slightly a 95% "what happened on the field stat".

Is that the factor that makes Ozzie Smith underrated in WAR? I think he peaks out at about 3 defensive wins above average, but how many defensive wins above replacement level is he? So they may be regressing the good defensive seasons, AND they may be giving too few total wins out to defense. Andrew Jones peaks at about 3.6 defensive wins above replacement.

HEY something is fishy, they say AJ is 36 defensive runs above AVERAGE, but then list the 3.6 as defensive wins above replacement level. It should be average because they set a single replacement value level independent of where it comes from.

Also, they give the positional adjustment of course.

[brett]

I dug up an old post from 2008. Here are the top third basemen by PCA Marker Points:

1. Schmidt- 291.3
2. Brett- 279.8
3. Mathews- 257.4
4. Boggs- 241.3
5. Jones- 193.2 (through 2010)
6. Santo- 191.3
7. Evans- 189.2
8. Robinson- 178.1
9. Baker- 176
10. Hack- 167.7

Both WAR and PCA see Chipper as the fifth best third baseman. However, he is barely ahead of Santo in PCA and well ahead of him in WAR. I assume this is due to different interpretations of their defense. Total Zone only has Santo ahead by 40 runs. I assume the gap is wider in PCA. According to WAR, Chipper came into the season about two All-Star seasons away from Boggs. He is more like four seasons away in PCA. WAR and PCA also differ widely with George Brett. Matt mentioned that he uses a lower replacement baseline than WAR. Brett failed to add any value to his WAR during his last three years. I assume he continued to build up Marker Points during these years. Furthermore, Brett's WAR is hurt by his late move away from third base. I guess different interpretations of his defense account for the rest of the difference.

My personal top five are:

1. Schmidt
2. Mathews
3. Brett
4. Boggs
5. Jones

This one is a good discussion point for me. WAR has Boggs ahead of Brett rougly 90 to 85, and Mathews ahead of them both, really insurmountably with 99 WAR and Jones at 80 just behind.

Mathews: 99
Boggs: 90
Brett: 85
Jones: 80

PCA puts Mathews, Boggs and Jones all significantly lower based on differences primarily in defense. Anyone able to account for the large variation?

If we plugged in PCA based defensive wins above average instead of the one used by Smith, would we get a change?

[cbenson5]

This one is a good discussion point for me. WAR has Boggs ahead of Brett rougly 90 to 85, and Mathews ahead of them both, really insurmountably with 99 WAR and Jones at 80 just behind.

Mathews: 99
Boggs: 90
Brett: 85
Jones: 80

PCA puts Mathews, Boggs and Jones all significantly lower based on differences primarily in defense. Anyone able to account for the large variation?

If we plugged in PCA based defensive wins above average instead of the one used by Smith, would we get a change?

For what it is worth, here is how the top five stack up according to a couple different variations of WAR. All time rank is in parentheses.

Fangraphs:

1. Schmidt- 110.6 (18)
2. Mathews- 107.2 (23)
3. Boggs- 94.8 (26)
4. Brett- 91.6 (29)
5. Jones- 86.2 (36)

Fangraphs uses total zone and then switches to UZR when it becomes available, so the only player that impacts is Chipper.

Baseball-Gauge

1. Schmidt- 94.6 (20)
2. Mathews- 87.6 (21)
3. Brett- 77.8 (27)
4. Boggs- 76.5 (29)
5. Jones- 70.0 (51)

The players here are tightly packed together, so Chipper will likely be in the mid 30's by the end of this year.

And Win-Shares

1. Schmidt- 464.3 (21)
2. Mathews- 443.2 (23)
3. Brett- 436.1 (27)
4. Boggs- 396.4 (43)
5. Jones- 390.6 (46)

[Matthew C.]

Is that the factor that makes Ozzie Smith underrated in WAR? .

Yes. Sean Smith told me that one reason that he regresses defenses as much as he does, is that casual fans would never support a stat that has guys like Ozzie ranked in the top 40 players ever, as they would with a system like WOWY used for defense, in which Ozzie looks UNREAL defensively.

[Matthew C.]

, but then list the 3.6 as defensive wins above replacement level. .

That would be a mistake. Everything listed (batting, fielding, baserunning, ROE, GIDP, etc.) is above average. The replacement aspect is only included as "Replacement" / "R", seperately from everything else. So basicaly, the playing time component/replacement level is added in on the end. I know how much Leewyle loved that! :)

[SABR Matt]

I dug up an old post from 2008. Here are the top third basemen by PCA Marker Points:

1. Schmidt- 291.3
2. Brett- 279.8
3. Mathews- 257.4
4. Boggs- 241.3
5. Jones- 193.2 (through 2010)
6. Santo- 191.3
7. Evans- 189.2
8. Robinson- 178.1
9. Baker- 176
10. Hack- 167.7

Both WAR and PCA see Chipper as the fifth best third baseman. However, he is barely ahead of Santo in PCA and well ahead of him in WAR. I assume this is due to different interpretations of their defense. Total Zone only has Santo ahead by 40 runs. I assume the gap is wider in PCA. According to WAR, Chipper came into the season about two All-Star seasons away from Boggs. He is more like four seasons away in PCA. WAR and PCA also differ widely with George Brett. Matt mentioned that he uses a lower replacement baseline than WAR. Brett failed to add any value to his WAR during his last three years. I assume he continued to build up Marker Points during these years. Furthermore, Brett's WAR is hurt by his late move away from third base. I guess different interpretations of his defense account for the rest of the difference.

My personal top five are:

1. Schmidt
2. Mathews
3. Brett
4. Boggs
5. Jones

Brett is rated by PCA to be a considerably better fielder than in most other fielding metrics, including TZ. His career .291 PCA-BA at the position attests to this (I don't think TZ sees him as signifiacntly above average with the glove when you add up the seasons and find the average runs saved per season.). But to the charge that Brett ran up his score in the final three seasons...he actually didn't gain many marker points in those seasons....he did gain wins...but the marker score starts hurting your final career score if you have half the wins of the average player in your total playing time...which he did.

[SABR Matt]

Yes. Sean Smith told me that one reason that he regresses defenses as much as he does, is that casual fans would never support a stat that has guys like Ozzie ranked in the top 40 players ever, as they would with a system like WOWY used for defense, in which Ozzie looks UNREAL defensively.

Yeah...sorry Sean...but you're wrong on this one. :) Report the facts...let reality catch up to the doubting fans.

Ozzie Smith is spectacularly underrated by WAR...PCA rates Smith as a top-10 all-time shortstop on the strength of year after year after blinkin' year of 5+ win defensive excellence at short (average fotr the position is 3 wins per 162).

[cbenson5]

Brett is rated by PCA to be a considerably better fielder than in most other fielding metrics, including TZ. His career .291 PCA-BA at the position attests to this (I don't think TZ sees him as signifiacntly above average with the glove when you add up the seasons and find the average runs saved per season.). But to the charge that Brett ran up his score in the final three seasons...he actually didn't gain many marker points in those seasons....he did gain wins...but the marker score starts hurting your final career score if you have half the wins of the average player in your total playing time...which he did.

Thank your for clearing that up Matt. I definitely think that you have Brett closer to where he should be than WAR. Just looking at the Chipper/Brett comparison, Jones will likely pull even with him in WAR by the end of the year. I think the world of Chipper, but that doesn't quite seem right to me. Boggs advantage in WAR over Brett also gives me an uneasy feeling.

[Matthew C.]

Yeah...sorry Sean...but you're wrong on this one. :) Report the facts...let reality catch up to the doubting fans.

Ozzie Smith is spectacularly underrated by WAR...PCA rates Smith as a top-10 all-time shortstop on the strength of year after year after blinkin' year of 5+ win defensive excellence at short (average fotr the position is 3 wins per 162).

Keep in mind - it was one of the reasons.

[cbenson5]

Hey Matt,

I was wondering how you see Jeff Kent. I ask because WAR has him as a borderline Hall of Famer, and he had seemed comfortably above the borderline to me. Thank you for your time.

[SABR Matt]

Hey Matt,

I was wondering how you see Jeff Kent. I ask because WAR has him as a borderline Hall of Famer, and he had seemed comfortably above the borderline to me. Thank you for your time.

I don't have the exact humbers on hand (at work right now), but will post them when I am home. What I do know is that PCA is considerably less impressed with Kent than the media was...primarily because PCA saw him as a lousy fielder for the back half of his career I believe and because he wasn't as much of an on base threat as a lot of other sluggers who do make the HOF without consistent 35+ HR power...He was consistently very good, but lacked the kind of dominant peak a player like him would need to make the hall without a good glove or a much higher OBP.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I don't have the exact humbers on hand (at work right now), but will post them when I am home. What I do know is that PCA is considerably less impressed with Kent than the media was...primarily because PCA saw him as a lousy fielder for the back half of his career I believe and because he wasn't as much of an on base threat as a lot of other sluggers who do make the HOF without consistent 35+ HR power...He was consistently very good, but lacked the kind of dominant peak a player like him would need to make the hall without a good glove or a much higher OBP.
It's is true prior to 1998 Kent's OBP (.324) was pretty mediocre. However, from 1998-2007 Kent hit .302/.373/.529. That is a nice 10 year run for a second baseman IMO. Kent averaged:

142 G, .302/.373/.529, 133 OPS+, 26 HR, 102 RBI, 89 R, 38 doubles, 59 BB, 92 K

Within this 10 year stretch Kent had an outstanding five year run from 1998-2002 averaging:

149 G, .307/.378/.548, 142 OPS+, 29 HR, 114 RBI, 96 R, 42 doubles, 63 BB, 105 K

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Matt I hope you don't mind me posting this PM you sent me back on 09/03/2008.



Hi Matt,

I was curious what does PCA say about Ryan Sandberg and Jeff Kent? Who had the better peak? The better career?

HWR

First...here are the PCA lines of each player:

Ryne Sandberg
Yr Lg Off Def OH DH Wins
1982 NL 4.92 2.13 5.5 2.0 7.05
1983 NL 4.60 4.84 4.8 6.7 9.44
1984 NL 10.93 3.15 17.4 3.2 14.08
1985 NL 8.60 3.18 12.9 3.4 11.78
1986 NL 5.20 2.58 6.1 2.2 7.78
1987 NL 5.10 1.63 6.5 0.8 6.73
1988 NL 5.62 2.45 7.0 1.9 8.07
1989 NL 8.75 3.52 13.2 4.2 12.27
1990 NL 10.22 3.22 16.2 3.6 13.44
1991 NL 10.06 3.29 15.8 3.7 13.35
1992 NL 9.70 4.54 15.0 6.1 14.24
1993 NL 3.87 2.22 4.6 2.4 6.09
1994 NL 1.23 1.12 0.9 1.2 2.35
1996 NL 4.96 3.16 6.0 3.7 8.12
1997 NL 2.15 1.45 1.3 0.7 3.60

Jeff Kent
Yr Lg Off Def OH DH Wins
1992 AL 2.09 0.63 2.8 0.5 2.72
1992 NL 0.75 0.40 0.7 0.2 1.15
1993 NL 4.39 1.24 5.3 0.1 5.63
1994 NL 4.42 2.86 6.0 3.7 7.28
1995 NL 4.52 1.74 5.8 1.2 6.26
1996 NL 2.86 0.84 3.4 0.6 3.70
1997 NL 5.06 2.01 6.0 1.2 7.07
1998 NL 6.76 3.04 9.8 3.6 9.80
1999 NL 6.21 1.42 8.7 0.4 7.63
2000 NL 10.21 1.91 16.0 0.9 12.12
2001 NL 5.91 2.78 7.4 2.8 8.69
2002 NL 7.15 2.98 10.0 3.1 10.13
2003 NL 5.26 2.76 7.0 3.1 8.02
2004 NL 5.30 2.52 6.8 2.5 7.82

Off = PCA offensive wins
Def = PCA fielding wins
OH = HOF Marker score for offense
DH = HOF Marker score for defense

If you take peak to mean consecutive chunk of years that were awesome, then there might be an argument for Jeff Kent's peak as being even remotely comparable to Sandberg's but that would be REALLY stretching it. Sandberg has Kent DOMINATED on a value level and a rate level (a reminder...the HOF Marker is the player's actual wins plus the difference between his actual wins and the average wins for a player at his position in his amount of playing time...so it's both a counting stat AND a rate stat essentially).

On a purely skill-based analysis, Sandberg was both a better hitter and a far better fielder. It's embarrassing how badly he whoops Kent in this analysis.

Total offensive HOF-Marker -

Sandberg: 123.2
Kent: 95.7 (2005-2007 will bump him up to around 110-115)

Defensive HOF -

Sandberg: 45.8
Kent: 23.9 (some third base in there costing him wins - 2005-2007 will bump Kent up to around 28)

[SABR Matt]

Yep...that still sums up my position on Kent vs. actual HOFers. Kent had a good OBP during the second half of his career, but the first half of his career counts too...and unfortunately for Kent...even a .379 OBP, while good...does not compare with the batting-first second base options by in large...and he doesn't slug enough to compare with the elite pure sluggers once you adjust for era.

The thing that really kills Kent though is his defense...

[curveball]

Hi Matt,

With all the talk about Koufax in the other forum, I was wondering whether you make any adjustments to his peak, whether mathematical or just subjective. I don't think you can take his peak at face value, as I don't think there is any pitcher that benefited more from his home park than Koufax. From 62-66, his home era was 1.40, and his road era was 2.86. I would think that his true ability would lie closer to his road results than his mind boggling home numbers.

I guess my question is can we really take his peak at face value, and just ignore the incredible disparity in his home/road splits?

[Matthew C.]

Hi Matt,

With all the talk about Koufax in the other forum, I was wondering whether you make any adjustments to his peak, whether mathematical or just subjective. I don't think you can take his peak at face value, as I don't think there is any pitcher that benefited more from his home park than Koufax. From 62-66, his home era was 1.40, and his road era was 2.86. I would think that his true ability would lie closer to his road results than his mind boggling home numbers.

I guess my question is can we really take his peak at face value, and just ignore the incredible disparity in his home/road splits?

I am sure that PCA adjusts for park.

[curveball]

I am sure that PCA adjusts for park.

I am pretty sure that PCA adjusts for park, but when you have someone with such drastic home/road splits, I would think that more adjustments are necessary. That is why I wouldn't take Koufax's peak at face value because his peak is so heavily biased by the benefits of his home park. Had he played for a different team, his peak would definitely not have been as good.

It's like Jim Rice. He appears to be a product of Fenway park. Looking at his road splits, it seems clear to me that he would have been a pretty ordinary player had he not played his whole career at Fenway.

For most players, their home/road splits are close enough that you can pretty much dismiss the disparity. For certain players like Koufax and Rice, I think you need to make extra adjusments, whether mathematical or just subjective.

If WAR was split into home WAR, and road WAR, I think most players would be close enough in both splits to not really warrant any further discussion. But I think if there is so much disparity in those splits for a Rice and a Koufax, that they need to be penalized somehow.

[Matthew C.]

I am pretty sure that PCA adjusts for park, but when you have someone with such drastic home/road splits, I would think that more adjustments are necessary. That is why I wouldn't take Koufax's peak at face value because his peak is so heavily biased by the benefits of his home park. Had he played for a different team, his peak would definitely not have been as good.

It's like Jim Rice. He appears to be a product of Fenway park. Looking at his road splits, it seems clear to me that he would have been a pretty ordinary player had he not played his whole career at Fenway.

For most players, their home/road splits are close enough that you can pretty much dismiss the disparity. For certain players like Koufax and Rice, I think you need to make extra adjusments, whether mathematical or just subjective.

If WAR was split into home WAR, and road WAR, I think most players would be close enough in both splits to not really warrant any further discussion. But I think if there is so much disparity in those splits for a Rice and a Koufax, that they need to be penalized somehow.

All players who play in great/poor parks are hurt/helped according to any of the total value stats.

Now some players with certain skills (say a speed-deamon playing on turf or an opposite-field hitting LH batter playing with a short-porch in LF) may be helped more than an average player by his parks. WAR treats each player as being affected the same way by park (handedness is included). The question then has to be - was their something in Koufax's repetoire/style, etc. that made him helped even more by his parks than the other pitchers he played with? If he wasn't. then WAR docks him fairly for playing in a pitchers park. Then the question becomes - if Koufax has a skill that fits in with the park he plays in, do we credit him at all for having that skill or give all of the "credit" to the park?

And are Koufax's splits that dramatic for a pitcher playing in an unbalanced park? Compared to other pitchers? How did Drysdale's splits look over those same years? Etc. If you split unadjusted hWAR and rWAR, I think you would be very surprised at how many HOFers got helped out A LOT from their parks.

[Matthew C.]

Hey Matt -

Kevin Appier: rWAR has him about the same career and peak as Stieb and Saberhagen. Obviously this is counter-intuitive to all of our memories. What does DNRA+ marker say, and if there is disagreement, what do you think WAR is doing "wrong"?

[curveball]

All players who play in great/poor parks are hurt/helped according to any of the total value stats.

Now some players with certain skills (say a speed-deamon playing on turf or an opposite-field hitting LH batter playing with a short-porch in LF) may be helped more than an average player by his parks. WAR treats each player as being affected the same way by park (handedness is included). The question then has to be - was their something in Koufax's repetoire/style, etc. that made him helped even more by his parks than the other pitchers he played with? If he wasn't. then WAR docks him fairly for playing in a pitchers park. Then the question becomes - if Koufax has a skill that fits in with the park he plays in, do we credit him at all for having that skill or give all of the "credit" to the park?

And are Koufax's splits that dramatic for a pitcher playing in an unbalanced park? Compared to other pitchers? How did Drysdale's splits look over those same years? Etc. If you split unadjusted hWAR and rWAR, I think you would be very surprised at how many HOFers got helped out A LOT from their parks.

Do you know where I would find hWAR and rWAR splits?

I just think that a player who is more consistent is a lot more valuable. Lets assume that with the same innings pitched, pitcher A has an era+ of 200 at home, and 120 on the road. Pitcher B has an era+ of 145 at home, and an era+ of 145 on the road. They play for the same team at a pitcher friendly home park. I would rather have pitcher B, because to me he is less reliant on his home park, and would easily be the better pitcher at any other ballpark. So the question becomes, do you want the pitcher who is invincible at one ballpark, and very good at every other ballpark, or the pitcher who is excellent at every ballpark?

You should be able to say that a great player could have played at any ballpark for any team with very little variance in performance. But when you get guys like Jim Rice who crushed Fenway, but performed quite poorly on the road, could you honestly say that he would have been a great player regardless of where he played? Was he really feared anywhere else other than at Fenway?

I understand that WAR factors in park, but looking at their home/road splits, do you think that Koufax and Drysdale would have had the same peaks/career had they played
for a different team?

Looking at pitching WAR only, Koufax got 10.8 in 1963, and again in 1966. Wouldn't the ideal hWAR and rWAR split be 50/50, that is 5.4 for home and 5.4 for road? Doesn't there come a point where you say the discrepancy may be too high? The question is what is that point? Is it 70/30, 75/25 or even as high as 80/20? I don't know the split, but what if Koufax got 8.5 hWAR and 2.3 rWAR, wouldn't that seem to indicate that we should give a lot of credit to the park?

[Matthew C.]

1. Nobody seperates WAR into unadjusted hWAR and aWAR. With all of the nuetralizing that already exists in WAR, doing so would un-nuetralize the data.

2. Keep in mind that pitchers tend to do relatively better at home than park effects would suggest. So a pitcher who pitched in a "fair" park would tend to perform somewhat better at home anyway. There is a good chance the Koufax would have been a little better at home regardless of park - it is unlikely that the park H/A splits are all park caused.

3. Koufax was not Jim Rice - Koufax was very, very good on the road and other-worldly at home. If I am not mistaken, Koufax's road ERAs were routinely in the top 10 during his whole prime and even led the league in road ERA a couple of times. OF course he was better at home, but that doesn't mean he wasn't really good on the road too.

4. Lets take the 10.8 WAR season. Unadjusted for park, that may be 13 WAR. So instead of what I bet would be close to 8 hWAR and 5 rWAR, the park adjustments may look more like 6 hWAR and 5 rWAR. Seams reasonable. Remember that about 1.2-1.3 of that rWAR would be replacement value anyway, so unless you think Koufax only produced 1.1-1.2 WAR preventing runs on the road (which is preposterously low), there is no chance in the world he was only getting 2.3 road WAR in those top seasons. In other words, what you are concerned about is taken care of in WAR: 13 WAR seasons turn into 11 WAR seasons. 10 WAR seasons turn into 8 WAR seasons, etc. WAR and PCA (and WARP and WSAB, etc.) are docking Koufax.

5. Why should we expect top players to have value distributed evenly home and away? Are stars not succeptable to park affects? It isn't enough that they are more skilled, but we expect them to have some type of intangiables that "rise above" the physics of their parks? And it isn't just Koufax, a significant chunk of HOFers had big-time park boosts.

6. After park adjustments, I bet most player's rWAR:hWAR splits are fairly close to 50/50 ... that is the whole point of the nuetralizing to begin with.

Bottom line: Koufax had a short career with a brilliant peak that was somewhat inflated due to park factors. And unless Koufax was more or less affected by his parks than his mates, I see no reason to think that his PCA/WAR, etc. are off. IF anything, WAR probably overrates the park effect, as Koufax would be less impacted by a big park since he allowed a lot less contact than the average pitcher. I think Matt "corrects" this phenomenon in PCA, which is one reason why he has Ryan ranked higher than the other systems and Niekro is ranked worse than in the other systems.

Of course, I do consider pitching offense more than most do, and this does ding up Koufax in my eyes, but not significanlty, as I give him a lot of that credit back due to his postseason dominance. I am okay with Koufax anywhere between 20-30 all-time. Anything else looks like an agenda or someone who is putting too much emphasis on either peak or career value.

[curveball]

1. Nobody seperates WAR into unadjusted hWAR and aWAR. With all of the nuetralizing that already exists in WAR, doing so would un-nuetralize the data.

2. Keep in mind that pitchers tend to do relatively better at home that park effects would suggest. So a pitcher who pitched in a "fair" park would tend to perform somewhat better at home anyway. There is a good chance the Koufax would have been a little better at home regardless of park - it is unlikely that the park H/A splits are all park caused.

3. Koufax was not Jim Rice - Koufax was very, very good on the road and other-worldly at home. If I am not mistaken, Koufax's road ERAs were routinely in the top 10 during his whole prime and even led the league in road ERA a couple of times. OF course he was better at home, but that doesn't mean he wasn't really good on the road too.

4. Lets take the 10.8 WAR season. Unadjusted for park, that may be 13 WAR. So instead of what I bet would be close to 8 hWAR and 5 rWAR, the park adjustments may look more like 6 hWAR and 5 rWAR. Seams reasonable. Remember that about 1.2-1.3 of that rWAR would be replacement value anyway, so unless you think Koufax only produced 1.1-1.2 WAR preventing runs on the road (which is preposterously low), there is no chance in the world he was only getting 2.3 road WAR in those top seasons. In other words, what you are concerned about is taken care of in WAR: 13 WAR seasons turn into 11 WAR seasons. 10 WAR seasons turn into 8 WAR seasons, etc. WAR and PCA (and WARP and WSAB, etc.) are docking Koufax.

5. Why should we expect top players to have value distributed evenly home and away? Are stars not succeptable to park affects? It isn't enough that they are more skilled, but we expect them to have some type of intangiables that "rise above" the physics of their parks? And it isn't just Koufax, a significant chunk of HOFers had big-time park boosts.

6. After park adjustments, I bet most player's rWAR:hWAR splits are fairly close to 50/50 ... that is the whole point of the nuetralizing to begin with.

Bottom line: Koufax had a short career with a brilliant peak that was somewhat inflated due to park factors. And unless Koufax was more or less affected by his parks than his mates, I see no reason to think that his PCA/WAR, etc. are off.


I just don't see how you can argue that. Which of these pitchers are most likely to have no effect on their historic seasons had they played in a different home ballpark?

GIBSON 1968
1.12 ERA 258 ERA+

HOME ERA 1.41
ROAD ERA 0.81

GIBSON 1969
2.18 ERA 164 ERA+

HOME ERA 1.94
ROAD ERA 2.40


MADDUX 1994
1.56 ERA 271 ERA+

HOME ERA 1.76
ROAD ERA 1.37


MADDUX 1995
1.63 ERA 262 ERA+

HOME ERA 1.64
ROAD ERA 1.62


KOUFAX 1962
2.54 ERA 142 ERA+

HOME ERA 1.75
ROAD ERA 3.53


KOUFAX 1963
1.88 ERA 159 ERA+

HOME ERA 1.38
ROAD ERA 2.31


KOUFAX 1964
1.74 ERA 188 ERA+

HOME ERA 0.85
ROAD ERA 2.93


KOUFAX 1965
2.04 ERA 160 ERA+

HOME ERA 1.38
ROAD ERA 2.72


KOUFAX 1966
1.73 ERA 190 ERA+

HOME ERA 1.52
ROAD ERA 1.96


You just have to ask yourself these questions.

1) If Koufax never had the luxury of Dodger stadium, would his peak (62-66) have been just as good, or even anywhere close to what it was? Based on his road eras, I think the obvious answer would have been no.

2) Is there anything about Gibson's career that suggests that he could not have duplicated his accomplishments without Busch Stadium?

3) Is there anything about Maddux's career that suggests the he could not have duplicated his accomplishments without the help of the home ballparks that he pitched in?


Without Dodger Stadium, Koufax would still have had a very good peak, but I don't think it would have been a great one. You say that,

5. Why should we expect top players to have value distributed evenly home and away? Are stars not succeptable to park affects? It isn't enough that they are more skilled, but we expect them to have some type of intangiables that "rise above" the physics of their parks? And it isn't just Koufax, a significant chunk of HOFers had big-time park boosts.


Give me some examples then. What other pitchers in the history of baseball benefited anywhere near as much as Koufax did by pitching in Dodger stadium? Which ones have such drastic home/road splits?

[Matthew C.]

I just don't see how you can argue that. Which of these pitchers are most likely to have no effect on their historic seasons had they played in a different home ballpark?

GIBSON 1968
1.12 ERA 258 ERA+

HOME ERA 1.41
ROAD ERA 0.81

GIBSON 1969
2.18 ERA 164 ERA+

HOME ERA 1.94
ROAD ERA 2.40


MADDUX 1994
1.56 ERA 271 ERA+

HOME ERA 1.76
ROAD ERA 1.37


MADDUX 1995
1.63 ERA 262 ERA+

HOME ERA 1.64
ROAD ERA 1.62


KOUFAX 1962
2.54 ERA 142 ERA+

HOME ERA 1.75
ROAD ERA 3.53


KOUFAX 1963
1.88 ERA 159 ERA+

HOME ERA 1.38
ROAD ERA 2.31


KOUFAX 1964
1.74 ERA 188 ERA+

HOME ERA 0.85
ROAD ERA 2.93


KOUFAX 1965
2.04 ERA 160 ERA+

HOME ERA 1.38
ROAD ERA 2.72


KOUFAX 1966
1.73 ERA 190 ERA+

HOME ERA 1.52
ROAD ERA 1.96


You just have to ask yourself these questions.

1) If Koufax never had the luxury of Dodger stadium, would his peak (62-66) have been just as good, or even anywhere close to what it was? Based on his road eras, I think the obvious answer would have been no.

2) Is there anything about Gibson's career that suggests that he could not have duplicated his accomplishments without Busch Stadium?

3) Is there anything about Maddux's career that suggests the he could not have duplicated his accomplishments without the help of the home ballparks that he pitched in?


Without Dodger Stadium, Koufax would still have had a very good peak, but I don't think it would have been a great one. You say that,

5. Why should we expect top players to have value distributed evenly home and away? Are stars not succeptable to park affects? It isn't enough that they are more skilled, but we expect them to have some type of intangiables that "rise above" the physics of their parks? And it isn't just Koufax, a significant chunk of HOFers had big-time park boosts.


Give me some examples then. What other pitchers in the history of baseball benefited anywhere near as much as Koufax did by pitching in Dodger stadium? Which ones have such drastic home/road splits?

Of course Koufax was helped by his parks - I never claimed otherwise. But WAR took care of it. He probably would have had a 13 WAR season than became a 11 WAR season after about 20 runs worth of prevention were "docked" from him. Rememebr, a big chunk of WAR is inning accumulation.

Again, you are talking about 8 hWAR / 5 r WAR that turns into 6 hWAR to 5 rWAR after adjustemnts. A 20 runs deduction is massive. The deduction you want is right there.

Lets put it this way, unadjusted WAR says that Koufax prevented about 125 runs above replacement that season. About 25 is replacement runs (playing time) and not affected by park.

Of the 100 remaining, Koufax probably was near + 65 runs at home and + 35 runs away (or close to twice as much value at home as on the road - the massive sized split you are suggesting). Add the 20 run deduction to his home totals via park effects and you have +45 runs prevented at home and +35 on the road. Seems totaly in line with what we would expect - around 11 WAR. We are ignoring about 1/3 of his home run prevention - that seems more than fair.

With the adjustments, koufax had an amazing peak. Without the adjustments, Koufax had an impossible peak. The problem is , you are looking at his WAR totals and are not recognizing them as being adjusted. His unadjusted WAR would be a lot better; which shows that he was helped by his parks. Nobody is disputing that.

[brett]

But for those 5 years Koufax posted about a 2.70 road ERA and below 1.40 home ERA. Clearly he particularly benefitted from his park, though perhaps just because offensive supression was so great there that he was at extraordinarily low risk of giving up strings of hits.

I think PCA (in its full form) factors out handed-ness advantages of parks, and even advantages or disadvantages due to fly-ball ground-ball ratios. IOW I think it puts a player into a hypothetically neutral ballpark with regard to those tendancies, though I am not sure. I remember it being discussed before.

When a player PARTICULARLY benefits from his park, then I think it is a good question to ask how much. But did Koufax take some kind of advantage, by say keeping the ball in a certain part of the strike zone? I don't think pitchers change their approach that much. I did see that Rockies pitchers threw more breaking balls at home around the same time that it was shown that breaking balls are less effected by altitude.

[Matthew C.]

But for those 5 years Koufax posted about a 2.70 road ERA and below 1.40 home ERA. Clearly he particularly benefitted from his park, .

Which I acknowledged about 10 times already. Curveball is suggesting that WAR and others are not capturing these benefits, and I am claiming that (for the most part) they are. Nobody is arguing that he didn't benefited quite a bit.

"When a player PARTICULARLY benefits from his park, then I think it is a good question to ask how much."

Agreed and mentioned in post #2063.

The issue becomes; if we find too much evidence that Koufax in particular was affected by his park more than other pitchers on his team, it becomes a situation where we can give Koufax credit for having some skill or ability that allowed for that to happen. Either that or Koufax got luckier than his mates.

[curveball]

Of course Koufax was helped by his parks - I never claimed otherwise. But WAR took care of it. He probably would have had a 13 WAR season than became a 11 WAR season after about 20 runs worth of prevention were "docked" from him. Rememebr, a big chunk of WAR is inning accumulation.

Again, you are talking about 8 hWAR / 5 r WAR that turns into 6 hWAR to 5 rWAR after adjustemnts. A 20 runs deduction is massive. The deduction you want is right there.

Lets put it this way, unadjusted WAR says that Koufax prevented about 125 runs above replacement that season. About 25 is replacement runs (playing time) and not affected by park.

Of the 100 remaining, Koufax probably was near + 65 runs at home and + 35 runs away (or close to twice as much value at home as on the road - the massive sized split you are suggesting). Add the 20 run deduction to his home totals via park effects and you have +45 runs prevented at home and +35 on the road. Seems totaly in line with what we would expect - around 11 WAR. We are ignoring about 1/3 of his home run prevention - that seems more than fair.

With the adjustments, koufax had an amazing peak. Without the adjustments, Koufax had an impossible peak. The problem is , you are looking at his WAR totals and are not recognizing them as being adjusted. His unadjusted WAR would be a lot better; which shows that he was helped by his parks. Nobody is disputing that.


I am not arguing that WAR is not accurate in Koufax's case. I am arguing that we are not sure that Koufax could have duplicated his peak in another ballpark.

Look at Todd Helton. Regardless of what WAR says, many people are still not sure he wasn't a product of Coors field. When players such as Koufax and Helton have such great disparities in their home/road splits, it leaves a lot of questions in peoples' minds.

When Helton becomes eligible for the HoF, he will probably lose some votes because he played his whole career at Coors, and voters are unsure of exactly how much that helped him.

Similarly with Koufax, I am not disputing his WAR totals. What I do question or wonder is if he could duplicate his 10.8 pitching WAR the next season if he was traded to another team, and did not have the benefit of Dodger stadium.

If he gets traded to another team, and doesn't come up with anything close to the peak he had at Dodger stadium, then what would that say? It doesn't mean that WAR was wrong, it means that he was a product of pitcher friendly Dodger stadium, or of course, he could have just tailed off.

If he gets traded to another team and pretty much duplicates what he accomplished at Dodger stadium by putting up similar WAR seasons as his peak, then I know for sure that Koufax wasn't a product of Dodger stadium.

I don't have any evidence, but I think that good pitchers are helped more by pitcher friendly parks than average to poor ones.

I just wish that Koufax had the opportunity to show that he could have achieved 10+ WAR without the help of Dodger stadium. Some people are convinced that he would have, but me not so much.

[Matthew C.]

I am not arguing that WAR is not accurate in Koufax's case. I am arguing that we are not sure that Koufax could have duplicated his peak in another ballpark.

Look at Todd Helton. Regardless of what WAR says, many people are still not sure he wasn't a product of Coors field. When players such as Koufax and Helton have such great disparities in their home/road splits, it leaves a lot of questions in peoples' minds.

When Helton becomes eligible for the HoF, he will probably lose some votes because he played his whole career at Coors, and voters are unsure of exactly how much that helped him.

Similarly with Koufax, I am not disputing his WAR totals. What I do question or wonder is if he could duplicate his 10.8 pitching WAR the next season if he was traded to another team, and did not have the benefit of Dodger stadium.

If he gets traded to another team, and doesn't come up with anything close to the peak he had at Dodger stadium, then what would that say? It doesn't mean that WAR was wrong, it means that he was a product of pitcher friendly Dodger stadium, or of course, he could have just tailed off.

If he gets traded to another team and pretty much duplicates what he accomplished at Dodger stadium by putting up similar WAR seasons as his peak, then I know for sure that Koufax wasn't a product of Dodger stadium.

I don't have any evidence, but I think that good pitchers are helped more by pitcher friendly parks than average to poor ones.

I just wish that Koufax had the opportunity to show that he could have achieved 10+ WAR without the help of Dodger stadium. Some people are convinced that he would have, but me not so much.

But the parks are nuetralized in WAR - that is my point. If you think Koufax couldn't have produced as high of a peak not in Dodger Stadium...WAR agreed...which is why it adjusted his WAR to 10.8. IF you do not think 10.8 was possible even after adjustment that you do disagree with his WAR total.

[Matthew C.]

I don't have any evidence, but I think that good pitchers are helped more by pitcher friendly parks than average to poor ones.

.

What makes you think this?

I think it is more likely that good pitchers 1. have the ability to excell regardless of their circumstances more than other pitchers and 2. have the skill to take advantage of park effects, those similar to what brett was refering too.

I think Matt agrees that top players are hurt less by LQ and park issues than margainal/ poor players. But he can confirm that.

[brett]

I am not arguing that WAR is not accurate in Koufax's case. I am arguing that we are not sure that Koufax could have duplicated his peak in another ballpark.

Look at Todd Helton. Regardless of what WAR says, many people are still not sure he wasn't a product of Coors field. When players such as Koufax and Helton have such great disparities in their home/road splits, it leaves a lot of questions in peoples' minds.

When Helton becomes eligible for the HoF, he will probably lose some votes because he played his whole career at Coors, and voters are unsure of exactly how much that helped him.



Helton's road percentages correspond to a player with a 135-140 OPS+, right in line with his relative home rates. He did not "particularly" benefit from his home park.

[curveball]

But the parks are nuetralized in WAR - that is my point. If you think Koufax couldn't have produced as high of a peak not in Dodger Stadium...WAR agreed...which is why it adjusted his WAR to 10.8. IF you do not think 10.8 was possible even after adjustment that you do disagree with his WAR total.

I am saying that Koufax "over-excelled" mightily at Dodger stadium. I know he got penalized by WAR for pitching half his games at Dodger stadium.

Here is a link to how much he over-excelled.

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2006/5/5/12349/01432

The article basically states that adjusting for park factors does not always tell the whole story. Some pitchers benefit disproportionately from their parks, and that was exactly what Koufax did.

As Brett stated, Koufax had a road era of 2.70 his lat 5 years. I just don't see how that would have translated to seasons of 10+ WAR had he pitched for a different team, at a home park other than Dodger stadium.

Koufax would have completed a lot fewer games. From 62-66, he completed 66% of his games at home, and only 48% on the road. He averaged around 8.4 innings per start at home, but only about 7.2 innings per start on the road. The lower innings would have made a dent in his WAR total.

His road numbers, a 2.70 era, and 7.2 innings per start just don't add up to a 10+ WAR season because that would be a good baseline to start at should Koufax never have had the luxury of Dodger stadium. That is why I just don't see him putting up a 10+ WAR with his new team had he been traded after his 1966 season.

[Matthew C.]

I am saying that Koufax "over-excelled" mightily at Dodger stadium. I know he got penalized by WAR for pitching half his games at Dodger stadium.

Here is a link to how much he over-excelled.

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2006/5/5/12349/01432

The article basically states that adjusting for park factors does not always tell the whole story. Some pitchers benefit disproportionately from their parks, and that was exactly what Koufax did.

As Brett stated, Koufax had a road era of 2.70 his lat 5 years. I just don't see how that would have translated to seasons of 10+ WAR had he pitched for a different team, at a home park other than Dodger stadium.

Koufax would have completed a lot fewer games. From 62-66, he completed 66% of his games at home, and only 48% on the road. He averaged around 8.4 innings per start at home, but only about 7.2 innings per start on the road. The lower innings would have made a dent in his WAR total.

His road numbers, a 2.70 era, and 7.2 innings per start just don't add up to a 10+ WAR season because that would be a good baseline to start at should Koufax never have had the luxury of Dodger stadium. That is why I just don't see him putting up a 10+ WAR with his new team had he been traded after his 1966 season.

How do you know that the reason that he didn't "overperform" at Dodger Stadium (compared to what was expected) is because he had a skill unique to that park or took advantage of the park?

If Koufax's splits were more extreme than his mates, then one of two things - 1. he had something in his repertoire that helped him excel in that park more than his mates or 2. he was lucky.Lets break down what it was about his pitching style, etc. that helped him "over-excel." What did he do that caused his splits to be more dramatic than his teammates? Until we can answer that question, I don't think we can assume anything.

[curveball]

What makes you think this?

I think it is more likely that good pitchers 1. have the ability to excell regardless of their circumstances more than other pitchers and 2. have the skill to take advantage of park effects, those similar to what brett was refering too.

I think Matt agrees that top players are hurt less by LQ and park issues than margainal/ poor players. But he can confirm that.


I agree with you. When I said that "I don't have any evidence, but I think that good pitchers are helped more by pitcher friendly parks than average to poor ones", I am saying good pitchers can take more advantage of a pitcher friendly park than average to poor ones, which is why it helps those good pitchers more.

[curveball]

How do you know that the reason that he didn't "overperform" at Dodger Stadium (compared to what was expected) is because he had a skill unique to that park or took advantage of the park?

If Koufax's splits were more extreme than his mates, then one of two things - 1. he had something in his repertoire that helped him excel in that park more than his mates or 2. he was lucky.Lets break down what it eas about his pitching style, etc. that helped him "over-excel." What did he do that caused his splits to be more dramatic than his teammates? Until we can answer that question, I don't think we can assume anything.

That is the million dollar question. Was it all Sandy' skill, or was it because Dodger stadium was even more friendly to left handed pitchers, or was it something else? I don't think any of us know for sure. But what we do know for sure is that he did over perform at his home park. That over performance led to even more WAR value.

If Koufax gets traded to another team, do you think he would also over perform to the same extent in his new stadium as he did at his old one? I don't think so, and that is why I don't take his peak at face value. I believe there was something about Dodger stadium that he would never be able to replicate anywhere else.

[Matthew C.]

That is the million dollar question. Was it all Sandy' skill, or was it because Dodger stadium was even more friendly to left handed pitchers, or was it something else? I don't think any of us know for sure. But what we do know for sure is that he did over perform at his home park. That over performance led to even more WAR value.

If Koufax gets traded to another team, do you think he would also over perform to the same extent in his new stadium as he did at his old one? I don't think so, and that is why I don't take his peak at face value. I believe there was something about Dodger stadium that he would never be able to replicate anywhere else.

Surely someone would have some insite regarding Dodgers Stadium and lefties...that shouldn't be too hard to rule on.

[BigRon]

But the parks are nuetralized in WAR - that is my point. If you think Koufax couldn't have produced as high of a peak not in Dodger Stadium...WAR agreed...which is why it adjusted his WAR to 10.8. IF you do not think 10.8 was possible even after adjustment that you do disagree with his WAR total.

Been following this a bit. It seems to me that there is some misunderstanding by at least one poster about the application of War or Win Shares or OPS+ or ERA+ in trying to iron out park effects. They attempt to do just that. The results try to emulate basically neutral park performance. Are they perfect? No. Are they basically "right"? I think so.

[Matthew C.]

Been following this a bit. It seems to me that there is some misunderstanding by at least one poster about the application of War or Win Shares or OPS+ or ERA+ in trying to iron out park effects. They attempt to do just that. The results try to emulate basically neutral park performance. Are they perfect? No. Are they basically "right"? I think so.

We are on the same page now - he is sayong that Koufax outperformed even what a normal Home/Away split Dodger Stadium split would suggest.

We now have to decide if the park favored Koufax, if Koufax had a skillfull hand in the difference himself, or if it was plain luck. Given the sample size "luck" seems not likely.

So was Dodger stadium constructed in such a way to allow Koufax particularly to outperform his expected splits or did Koufax have some skill/attribute that allowed him to outperform his expected splits?

Not sure there is a lot of difference between the two options.

[BigRon]

So was Dodger stadium constructed in such a way to allow Koufax particularly to outperform his expected splits or did Koufax have some skill/attribute that allowed him to outperform his expected splits?

Not sure there is a lot of difference between the two options.

Well, Dodger Stadium is symmetrical, so there's no obvious left-right thing there. I never heard anything about unusual wind currents there- not saying it doesn't exist, but I never heard anything. No unusual temperature issues that I'm aware of- usually pretty benign there.

I would think that pitchers with very high K rates relative to average are somewhat less influenced by park issues than others. True, Koufax struck out batters at a lower rate on the road, but still very high against league norms.

Interesting that Koufax completed "only" 48% of his road starts during the referenced time. Still WAY higher than average.

[curveball]

Well, Dodger Stadium is symmetrical, so there's no obvious left-right thing there. I never heard anything about unusual wind currents there- not saying it doesn't exist, but I never heard anything. No unusual temperature issues that I'm aware of- usually pretty benign there.

I would think that pitchers with very high K rates relative to average are somewhat less influenced by park issues than others. True, Koufax struck out batters at a lower rate on the road, but still very high against league norms.

Interesting that Koufax completed "only" 48% of his road starts during the referenced time. Still WAY higher than average.


From 1962-1966, Juan Marichal completed 58.51% of his games at home, and 59.09% of his road games. These weren't exactly Bob Gibson's best years, but he completed 41.46% of his home starts, and 59.09% of his road starts.

[Matthew C.]

I would think that pitchers with very high K rates relative to average are somewhat less influenced by park issues than others. .

This is correct and one notch in Koufax's favor, perhaps.

[brett]

I am saying that Koufax "over-excelled" mightily at Dodger stadium. I know he got penalized by WAR for pitching half his games at Dodger stadium.

Here is a link to how much he over-excelled.

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2006/5/5/12349/01432

The article basically states that adjusting for park factors does not always tell the whole story. Some pitchers benefit disproportionately from their parks, and that was exactly what Koufax did.

As Brett stated, Koufax had a road era of 2.70 his lat 5 years. I just don't see how that would have translated to seasons of 10+ WAR had he pitched for a different team, at a home park other than Dodger stadium.

Koufax would have completed a lot fewer games. From 62-66, he completed 66% of his games at home, and only 48% on the road. He averaged around 8.4 innings per start at home, but only about 7.2 innings per start on the road. The lower innings would have made a dent in his WAR total.

His road numbers, a 2.70 era, and 7.2 innings per start just don't add up to a 10+ WAR season because that would be a good baseline to start at should Koufax never have had the luxury of Dodger stadium. That is why I just don't see him putting up a 10+ WAR with his new team had he been traded after his 1966 season.

So I decided to play around with the park factors and other expectations as well. For someone with a 2.70 road ERA we would expect about a 2.45 to 2.50 home ERA due to normal home/road splits given a neutral home ballpark. Koufax' "park factor" for those 5 years was about 91-92, but that is the total effect on runs caused by simply playing half time in your home park. It means that Dodgers' stadium actually gave up only about 82-84% as much as average, (plus his road parks would have been 101-102%, so we might expect that home ERA of 2.45-2.50 to drop down into the range of about 1.95 to 2.10. In other words a 2.00 home ERA would have been right in line with a 2.70 road ERA during that period, and in at least one of the seasons, his home ERA is higher that projected from his road ERA. Remember his home ERA was about 1.40 during that stretch.

If that 1.40 is significantly different than the expected 2.00, I would postulate that it may be simply because there is non-linearity in run production corresponding to very low allowed OB%, and slugging percentages. In other words, take a pitcher with a 150 ERA+ in a 4.00 run environment, and put him into a 3.00 run environment and he now becomes a 180 ERA+ pitcher because offense drops off even faster at low rates allowed in a very low run setting.

(On second thought though, Koufax' OPS+ against was not out of line with his ERA+'s during that period.)

Another factor I remember was that Koufax was one of the first pitchers to get highly righty platooned against. Teams would put up right handed hitters who were not in the unsual lineup against him, and I think I remember that they did this MORE in LA than in their home parks, perhaps because starters were more reluctant to sit on the bench in a home game.

[cbenson5]

Hey Matt,

I am curious how you handle League Quality in PCA. More broadly, can you give any advice on how one should handle LQ when comparing recent stars to those from the early part of the 20'th century? I am asking, because I am beginning to think that I have been overrating the early stars from baseball. For example, I broke down my personal top 20 by year of debut into three segments pre 1933, 1933-1965, 1966-1999. This is what I came up with:
Pre- 1933
8 players (Wagner, Cobb, Ruth, Speaker, Hornsby, Collins, Gehrig, Ott)
1933-1965
8 players (Williams, Musial, Mantle, Morgan, F. Robinson, Mathews, Mays, Aaron)
1966-1999
4 players (Bonds, Henderson, Schmidt, Brett)

With the exception of George Brett and, maybe, Mathews, I don't think I have an unusual top 20. However, logic tells me that more top players should come from recent years. I am just hoping for some advice from an expert. Thank you for your time.

[SABR Matt]

Hey Matt,

I am curious how you handle League Quality in PCA. More broadly, can you give any advice on how one should handle LQ when comparing recent stars to those from the early part of the 20'th century? I am asking, because I am beginning to think that I have been overrating the early stars from baseball. For example, I broke down my personal top 20 by year of debut into three segments pre 1933, 1933-1965, 1966-1999. This is what I came up with:
Pre- 1933
8 players (Wagner, Cobb, Ruth, Speaker, Hornsby, Collins, Gehrig, Ott)
1933-1965
8 players (Williams, Musial, Mantle, Morgan, F. Robinson, Mathews, Mays, Aaron)
1966-1999
4 players (Bonds, Henderson, Schmidt, Brett)

With the exception of George Brett and, maybe, Mathews, I don't think I have an unusual top 20. However, logic tells me that more top players should come from recent years. I am just hoping for some advice from an expert. Thank you for your time.

I wish I'd had more time to pursue a deeper league quality analysis. I used the skewness and kurtosis of each league's RS/G/Side distribution to make an estimate of league quality (the more skewed the distribution, while at the same time possessing low kurtosis (a measure of the sharpness of a curve)...the more tail-heavy the run scoring was, thus implying that there were teams beating up on other teams...implying a deep imbalance in league parity and, likely, poor league quality. That was just a rough guess.

PCA itself does not use that as I'm not confident in its' assessment...what it does instead is force the player win creation rate distribution in each league to fit a standard distribution as represented by the all-time distiribution at least position for defense, and for each pitcher and batter...I call that normalization...it's not perfect, but it at least creates a final ranking that is a little less ancient-heavy than the original PCA.

Mty top 20 is somewhat different than yours, though obviously many of the same names are present...I'll post it when I have access to my data and can incorporate all moder data not included i the old database (as well as make tweaks to cccount for what I believe are weaknesses in the original PCA method).

[brett]

Matt, it was recently brought to my attention that George Brett had apparently significantly better home than road hitting stats in his early years, '74-'82 with the exception of the 1980 season. Then starting in '83 through the end of his career he had almost the exact opposite trend, almost completely balancing out his hitting value by the end of his career. Is there any explanation for this? I remember you wrote once that Royals stadium benefitted line drive hitters, and perhaps those who ran well. I noticed too that Brett had over 2/3 of his triples at home. Does it seem plausible that Brett did that much better at home from '74-'82 when he ran much better and tried to hit line drives, and then when he lost some speed and maybe tried to hit more flyballs that he was actually hurt (relatively) by his park trends?
Is there any easy way to get his combined home-road splits for '74-'82 excluding 1980 and for '83-'90. I think he batted 70 points higher at home from '74-'82.

[SABR Matt]

So the question would be...why exclude 1980? What was different that year?

I am usually inclined to believe that even several-year trends in a split stat are dubious unless a solid reason is provided that they might exist...but it is possible that when Brett was faster and more of a line drive hitter, he had more of an advantage at home. Yes...their home park did strongly benefit speedy players (hit it on the ground hard and the artificial turf was like superball material)...are Brett's home splits strongly favoring triples and singles at home during that stretch? And then strongly favoring home runs on the road later in his career?

[brett]

So the question would be...why exclude 1980? What was different that year?

I am usually inclined to believe that even several-year trends in a split stat are dubious unless a solid reason is provided that they might exist...but it is possible that when Brett was faster and more of a line drive hitter, he had more of an advantage at home. Yes...their home park did strongly benefit speedy players (hit it on the ground hard and the artificial turf was like superball material)...are Brett's home splits strongly favoring triples and singles at home during that stretch? And then strongly favoring home runs on the road later in his career?

I am going to start to piece together the splits. Actually, '80 was balanced, '81 was nearly balanced, and '82 started a trend in which he performed better on the road consistently every year. In '80 he started to save his legs, (walked more, hit more home runs, became willing to hit the ball in the air more which he really tried to avoid through '79).

So let's start with his splits from '74-'79.

At home he went:

603 for 1628 for a .370 batting average!
132 doubles
48 triples
32 home runs
.569 Slugging %

On the road he went:
474 for 1827 for a .259 batting average
77 doubles
25 triples
42 home runs
.398 slugging percentage!

He tripled in 1.4% of his at bats on the road and 2.9% at home.

Those look like some huge splits over a span of 6 years.
The reason that Brett was so interesting in his splits was that his road rates might not have given him a single all star type season going into 1980, while in reality he was an established star with a batting title, and runner-up MVP in '76, and had started 3 straight all star games, and was also runner up MVP in '79. His '77 and '79 road slugging percentages were solid at .495 abd .492.

Then in '80 he hits .388 and sluggs .640 on the road, .391 and .685 at home. He only hit .300 on the road once at .301 with a .398 slugging in '76,

From '82 to '93 his numbers look a lot more balanced, but he seemed to do better on the road, despite most hitters not doing quite as well at home.

At home he went:
889 for 3005 and a .296 average
188 doubles
36 triples
89 home runs
.471 slugging

On the road
899 for 3053 and a .294 average
206 doubles
just 12 triples
.496 slugging percentage.
124 home runs (That's about a 420 home run pace on the road prorated through his career at bats and even better with a normal home boost)


his .294 average and .496 slugging on the road over that 11 year period are definitely hall of fame level production for that era. His overall productivity almost balances out over the length of his career, but it seems to show me that a players approach DOES impact their performance in a given ballpark. It seems to support Brett's own statements that he was taught to hit the ball down in his early years, to keep it on the ground or hit line drives, but that fly balls were bad, and then again that he became willing to try to pull the ball more and hit it in the air more.

Overall Brett still went .290/.356/.469 on the road with over 1500 hits and 181 home runs in a league that as a whole went about .265/.323/.380 composite on the road over his career. .320/.383/.506 at home with 136 home runs.

[brett]

Duplicate post

[cbenson5]

I wish I'd had more time to pursue a deeper league quality analysis. I used the skewness and kurtosis of each league's RS/G/Side distribution to make an estimate of league quality (the more skewed the distribution, while at the same time possessing low kurtosis (a measure of the sharpness of a curve)...the more tail-heavy the run scoring was, thus implying that there were teams beating up on other teams...implying a deep imbalance in league parity and, likely, poor league quality. That was just a rough guess.

PCA itself does not use that as I'm not confident in its' assessment...what it does instead is force the player win creation rate distribution in each league to fit a standard distribution as represented by the all-time distiribution at least position for defense, and for each pitcher and batter...I call that normalization...it's not perfect, but it at least creates a final ranking that is a little less ancient-heavy than the original PCA.

Mty top 20 is somewhat different than yours, though obviously many of the same names are present...I'll post it when I have access to my data and can incorporate all moder data not included i the old database (as well as make tweaks to cccount for what I believe are weaknesses in the original PCA method).

Thank you Matt. I imagine your analysis would go a little over my head, but it sounds like we are going through the same issue. That is trying to find a way to get more modern players in the higher echelons of our ratings. I look forward to seeing your top 20. Hopefully, it is not too far off from mine. Then I will feel a little better that I am on the right track.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Matt, whats your new system called and do you have a thread for it?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I hope Matt returns. He hasn't posted since August 13, 2011. :sigh:

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Oh really? Didn't know that. Maybe he's hoarding info, gathering his arsenal, and will come back in with a crashing wallop that will knock us off our feet :P

[Matthew C.]

Oh really? Didn't know that. Maybe he's hoarding info, gathering his arsenal, and will come back in with a crashing wallop that will knock us off our feet :P

Actually, he just got tired of what he perceived as snarky people always snarkly whining about how snarky sabermetricians were.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Actually, he just got tired of what he perceived as snarky people always snarkly whining about how snarky sabermetricians were.

Always thought Matt balanced his interaction with pure stat crowd and the pure traditionalist crowd pretty well.

It isn't smart to only use one or the other; we should allow them to compliment each other.

Anyway, yeah hope he comes back.

[Matthew C.]

Always thought Matt balanced his interaction with pure stat crowd and the pure traditionalist crowd pretty well.

It isn't smart to only use one or the other; we should allow them to compliment each other.

Anyway, yeah hope he comes back.

There were a handful of members that constantly gave him fits - and he got tired of it. I conversed with Matt a lot of times about stats off-site. I miss him around here too.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

There were a handful of members that constantly gave him fits - and he got tired of it. I conversed with Matt a lot of times about stats off-site. I miss him around here too.


Yeah I also took a long break, just choosing not to deal with the nonsense and ignorance. Just gets old. Even now, I read some things that just ooze with stupidity. Matt's passion was probably attacked on a personal level one too many times. Well, if you have a way to tell him, let him know his work is appreciated.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I want Matt to come back so he can explain to me the inner workings of PCA. :happy:

[leewileyfan]

Actually, he just got tired of what he perceived as snarky people always snarkly whining about how snarky sabermetricians were.

That is a rather one-sided and amusing take on what was transpiring in posts here. "Snarky" means snippy, sniping, defensive and nasty. If one revisits the actual content of message exchanges [as I did last night], one might come up with a different conclusion.

[Matthew C.]

That is a rather one-sided and amusing take on what was transpiring in posts here. "Snarky" means snippy, sniping, defensive and nasty. If one revisits the actual content of message exchanges [as I did last night], one might come up with a different conclusion.

I said what "he percieved as being..." I wasn't even talking about my own perception, necessarily.
I was there for all of it...and much of what involved Matt was very snarky. Not on this thread as much, but on others in which Matt visited. I wasn't even talking about you - why so defensive?

[leewileyfan]

I said what "he percieved as being..." I wasn't even talking about my own perception, necessarily.
I was there for all of it...and much of what involved Matt was very snarky. Not on this thread as much, but on others in which Matt visited. I wasn't even talking about you - why so defensive?

I am not being defensive at all. Absent your post to which I alluded, I would have steered clear altogether. However, [and yes, you did state "what he perceived" in your observation] the conclusion of the statement suggested that those in the opposition were "whining." Such was very much NOT the case. I replied only because I was among the naysayers, who neither whined nor generalized SNARKY upon sabermetricians generally.

[Matthew C.]

I am not being defensive at all. Absent your post to which I alluded, I would have steered clear altogether. However, [and yes, you did state "what he perceived" in your observation] the conclusion of the statement suggested that those in the opposition were "whining." Such was very much NOT the case. I replied only because I was among the naysayers, who neither whined nor generalized SNARKY upon sabermetricians generally.

Like I said, you were not in my mind when I was thinking of the people he had issues with. I know the two of you went at it from time to time, but you always came with research and thoughtfulness and statistics. He never had a problem with that. You never poo-pooed the value of statistics or data themselves. Those are the people he had a problem with.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

SABR MATT, please come back dude, just ignore the fackers who annoy you. You offer a lot to this site. Us traditionalists learned something from you.