The Baseball Page's Stats

[538280]

I have known for a long time about the website The Baseball Page (www.thebaseballpage.com), but it wasn't until recently that I really looked at their statistical pages. I must say, the variety of stats (and indexed to league average!) they have is UNBELIEVEABLE! They may be my new place to look at player stats instead of BBRef. Just look at the page for Jimmy Wynn:

http://www.thebaseballpage.com/players/stats/wynnji01

I have wanted to know for some time what Jimmy Wynn's relative secondary average is, and now I know! 154! Relative RC, relative total average, relative isolated power splits by era and team, so many different categories, and gives you much better ways to compare players than does BBRef. I must give my hats off to the people over there, they've done a great job!

[BoSox Rule]

That site is pretty awesome. One thing. I am looking at Pedro's page and I can't put my finger on what CP is. His total CP is 13.1, league is 5.7, relative is 231.

[Joltin' Joe]

That site is pretty awesome. One thing. I am looking at Pedro's page and I can't put my finger on what CP is. His total CP is 13.1, league is 5.7, relative is 231.

Completion percentages. The percentage of his starts that he completed.

[RuthMayBond]

That site is pretty awesome. One thing. I am looking at Pedro's page and I can't put my finger on what CP is. His total CP is 13.1, league is 5.7, relative is 231.So much for his lack of stamina?

[BoSox Rule]

So much for his lack of stamina?
Here is Pedro in comparision...

Relative CP
Pedro: 231
Clemens: 198
Young: 115
W Johnson: 142
Seaver: 177

Gooden 1985: 332
Pedro 2000: 511

[Joltin' Joe]

Here is Pedro in comparision...

Relative CP
Pedro: 231
Clemens: 198
Young: 115
W Johnson: 142
Seaver: 177

Gooden 1985: 332
Pedro 2000: 511


Yeah I clearly see where you are going with this. I made a similar post in the Pedro VS Gooden thread.

[digglahhh]

I voted for Pedro in that poll, but relative CP isn't the same as say, relative SLG or something.

Innings pitched are fixed, they are the only thing guaranteed (obviously, minus extra innings) in the game. Normally, you can take a guy in a low offense environment and argue his SLG was more valuable than a guy with a higher SLG in a more hitter friendly era.

But that's apples and oranges to CGs. In any given era, season or game the amount of runs a team may need to score will fluctuate. But no matter what the case a team still has to hold a team down for nine innings. When Pedro leaves the game inferior pitchers have to come in and protect that lead. So it doesn't matter, in that sense, whether he has better relative stamina, he is still handing the ball over to subpar relievers more often that Doc did. Its that simple, innings never change.

Leo Mazzone says the game is a race to 27 outs, the first team to get the other team to make 27 outs wins. 27 outs in the only constant in the game, the only thing that is not relative to an era. That's why Mazzone considers defense to be the true offense and offense to be the defense.

When comparing Pedro to the league and Doc to the league this argument can be made for Pedro. But when comparing them directly Doc was just on the hill more than Pedro was, its that simple.

Doc vs. Pedro is an argument over whether Pedro's extra quality is enough to make up for Doc's workload advantage. I began the debate thinking it was, but I'm no longer sure.

[538280]

Here is Pedro in comparision...

Relative CP
Pedro: 231
Clemens: 198
Young: 115
W Johnson: 142
Seaver: 177

Gooden 1985: 332
Pedro 2000: 511

It's a lot easier to be that much above the league average when the league average is so low. When the league average is low (4.7%), it makes it so if you have a +19.4 linear difference then you have a 411% percentage difference. When the league average is higher, like it was in 1985 (13.7) it is harder to post a high percentage difference.

So, you're better off going with the linear difference with CG%. However, with something like OBP you're better off going with the percentage difference. Why? Because the difference in OBPs over time has been much lower. OBPs may change by like 5% over time, but CG% will change by like 200% (or even far more going back to deadball). So, in this case the linear difference is more accurate than the percentage difference.

Our normal use of relative stats is blinding us. Don't let it. It's math, really. Knowing when the linear difference or the percentage difference will be more accurate.

Here's a good example. Let's pretend we have Player A who hits 46 home runs in a season, and Player B who hit 14. Player A has hit 229% more home runs than Player B.

Now we have Player C who hit 3 home runs. Player B, who hit 14, hit 367% more home runs than player C.

So, Player B has a higher percentage difference from player C than Player A has from player B.

Does that make the difference between 14 home runs and 3 home runs greater than the difference between 46 and 14? No, of course not. We need to go with the linear difference. The same is true in the case of historical complete game percentages.

Going with the linear difference, Gooden is 32 above league while Pedro is 19.4

[iPod]

Agree with 538280. In the deadball era, 3 home runs over the league leader was, what, 40% more than the leader? Doesn't mean it's more impressive than a 30% lead today.

[csh19792001]

The same is true in the case of historical complete game percentages.

Going with the linear difference, Gooden is 32 above league while Pedro is 19.4

Spot on. Excellent work, Chris.

[RuthMayBond]

That's why Mazzone considers defense to be the true offense and offense to be the defense.You sure Stengel didn't say this? :laugh

[SABR Matt]

Good site...I like the look of it...the only problem I have is that there's no mention of park adjustment at all.