Statistical Breakdown

[brett]

I started this for my own statistical purposes in rating the teams. I will begin with raw data only for SP, RP, Lineup, Bench and Fielding, then I will subjectify them. I really just needed to get started because it is quite a chore. Feel free to discuss. I may post a data only thread later.

[brett]

See thread "Brett's worksheet"

[brett]

I will be posting another set of averages in italics which are straight up averages rating every pitcher though the same number of innings. The bold averages over-weight the huge inning guys of course. The "equal weight" average will underrate legitimate inning eaters, but both averages used together should be valuable.

[AstrosFan]

I was never going for ERA+ with my pitchers, but more fielding independent pitching stats. Vance and Waddell, relative to their leagues, are probably the greatest strikeout artists of all time. But good chart, and I hope to see more like them.

[brett]

I was never going for ERA+ with my pitchers, but more fielding independent pitching stats. Vance and Waddell, relative to their leagues, are probably the greatest strikeout artists of all time. But good chart, and I hope to see more like them.

If I have the time, I will be looking at the actual fielding effects on a pitcher's ERA during their career-though this would be a little more subjective in that there is no great stat. I know it can be significant though. In a given season a pitcher can pitch at a 100 level and produce at a 120 or 80 level with historically great or terrible defenses. This would be very rare though. +/-10 over a 5 year period would be about the limit.

So Waddell and Vance may very well be 10-15 points better in my final analysis, while others may ne 10-15 points worse.

(Well based on BBPro, Waddell is about 6 points better and Vance about 2-2.5 points better, but that's pretty significant, unfortunately Coveleski is 4 points worse, while Bender is about +1. Alltogether it would raise your starters by about 1.3 points on the composite ERA+, but other teams might also drop some).

[brett]

Bullpens. I will probably run this like starters for now. A team will probably need around 300-400 innings from the pen.

I may also try to run Lefty v. Lefty and Righty v. Right OPS against.

[Wade8813]

TSS doesn't have Gordon, AF does (Unless they traded, and I missed the announcement).

[brett]

Thanks! I'll have it up with some numbers tonight!

[brett]

For bullpen, I listed the combined average innings because I figure that a team needs to have at least 400 innings covered by the bullpen to be really set there. If 5 starters each go 200, then there are about 377 innings left for the pen assuming 8.5 innings per game and 458 assuming 9.0 innings per game.

[Wade8813]

You have both TSS and WL listed as having Plesac, and you missed that DMF has Eckersley.

[Erik Bedard]

I'm pleasantly surprised by my bullpen. Probably top 5, with my rotation. And I like my lineup more than my pitching. And Gagne looks like the second-best closer option out there, after Rivera.

[Wade8813]

And Gagne looks like the second-best closer option out there, after Rivera. Based on what? Papelbon, Wagner, Nathan, (and I assume Eck) all have better numbers based off just that chart. And Ryan is basically tied.

[brett]

Based on what? Papelbon, Wagner, Nathan, (and I assume Eck) all have better numbers based off just that chart. And Ryan is basically tied.

I think they are correct now.

[brett]

I'm pleasantly surprised by my bullpen. Probably top 5, with my rotation. And I like my lineup more than my pitching. And Gagne looks like the second-best closer option out there, after Rivera.

I think you need at least 3 more relievers. They are out there:dance

Unfortunately there are not enough top lefties out there.

[Erik Bedard]

Based on what? Papelbon, Wagner, Nathan, (and I assume Eck) all have better numbers based off just that chart. And Ryan is basically tied.

None have as many IP. I kinda missed Nathan and Wagner when skimming the chart, but Papelbon is about 25 IP less than Gagne. Personally, I'd rank it Rivera, Wagner, Gagne, Nathan, Ryan. So third.

[leecemark]

--Brett, you shortchanged my bullpen a little. I took Wood 68-72 to use as a swingman. You've only got him listed 68-70 - which leaves his best year out. That year, which is one of my best pitcher seasons, isn't getting counted in either the relief or starter stats.

[brett]

--Brett, you shortchanged my bullpen a little. I took Wood 68-72 to use as a swingman. You've only got him listed 68-70 - which leaves his best year out. That year, which is one of my best pitcher seasons, isn't getting counted in either the relief or starter stats.


You are right, but if I take his whole run and put it under the bullpen, the huge inning total will actually bring your average down somewhat.

I think we need one last category for pitchers which is "spot starter" or 6th starter or emergency starter. Mine right now for example is Randy Myers who would be a pure emergency guy.

Since you have Wood listed as bullpen, I will move him there. We have to eventually be a little subjective anyway.

So I changed it. Actually it doesn't bring your bullpen ERA+ down much and it gives you a very secure 560+ innings from the pen.

I think in the end I should count him in both places and use his two main starting seasons and 3 relief seasons separately, but divide the innings in each category by 5 years.

Do you plan to get another starter?

[leecemark]

--Maybe since he is a swingman I can split the difference on years. I'll use the 1971 334 innings at 188 ERA+, but skip the 1972 377 IP at 126:). I guess including all five years would slightly lower my bullpen ERA, but it would be a huge increase in my available bullpen innings. Of course that is the one area where I already lead the league.
--Edit: I see you already beat me to the conclusion :).

[brett]

--Maybe since he is a swingman I can split the difference on years. I'll use the 1971 334 innings at 188 ERA+, but skip the 1972 377 IP at 126:). I guess including all five years would slightly lower my bullpen ERA, but it would be a huge increase in my available bullpen innings. Of course that is the one area where I already lead the league.
--Edit: I see you already beat me to the conclusion :).

I used Wood's rates from his two starting seasons and from his 3 relief seasons separately in each table, but averaged his innings in each category over 5 years. See the results. I think it is most accurate for how he will be used. Over his 5 years he averaged 80 innings per in relief and 142 as a starter (just huge IP there). I think if you stick with 4 starters + Wood you have enough innings there to survive, but Wood needs to be picking up a spot start twice a month or 12-14 times a season.

Also, if people will check:
a) left and right handed designations to see if I missed anyone and

b) see if I used the years you wanted. If I couldn't find years on the roster page, I picked the 3 most likely. You can check by seeing if the average IP are correct also

c) if someone can give me a quick list of pitchers who had strike seasons in their stretch so I can * them I would appreciate it.

Personally, I think that people need to think about getting 3 lefties out of the pen. At least 2! 3 rhrps and 3 lhrps is much more valuable than 5 and 1.

Also, I think that your relievers average IP need to add up to 400 or you are in SERIOUS trouble. 450 is really safe and 500 or more would be really a bonus. If 5 starters all go 200 IP and you happened to have 162 games of 8.5 innings, you would need 377 from the pen against average offenses. Raise it 20% against these hitters and you need 452 just to complete games. Some starters may be able to go 220-240 MAX, but that's a heckuva lot against the hitters in this league. I'm thinking most starters would be in the 190-205 range.

[leecemark]

--Tekulve and Howe both had shortened seasons fir the 1981 strike in their 3 years. Adding a third of a season out of a 3 year window would have a significant effect on their average IP.
--It is tough to estimate how many spot starts may be required. A little bad luck with injuries and you may need to fill a full rotation slot with your 6th man (or 5th in my case). Anybody who doesn't have an extra starter working out of the pen could find themselves at a significant disadvatage. Even with Wood I will probably take a SP as my 4th rightie out of the pen. There should be a reasonable presumption that a SP shifted to the pen will be MORE effective used in short bursts (less need to pace, rely on secondary pitches, see guys multiple times, etc).
-- For realistic modeling I'm thinking an old time starter of lesser durability. I think there are some guys who were asked to go deep and pitch on short rest in the old days who would have been MUCH better on a stricter rotation with no expectation of finishing games. For the purposes of this exercise I think some of my real ball modeling will probably not get me very far though. The different looks and usage theories will likley be ignored in favor of raw stats.

[brett]

--Tekulve and Howe both had shortened seasons fir the 1981 strike in their 3 years. Adding a third of a season out of a 3 year window would have a significant effect on their average IP.
--It is tough to estimate how many spot starts may be required. A little bad luck with injuries and you may need to fill a full rotation slot with your 6th man (or 5th in my case). Anybody who doesn't have an extra starter working out of the pen could find themselves at a significant disadvatage. Even with Wood I will probably take a SP as my 4th rightie out of the pen. There should be a reasonable presumption that a SP shifted to the pen will be MORE effective used in short bursts (less need to pace, rely on secondary pitches, see guys multiple times, etc).
-- For realistic modeling I'm thinking an old time starter of lesser durability. I think there are some guys who were asked to go deep and pitch on short rest in the old days who would have been MUCH better on a stricter rotation with no expectation of finishing games. For the purposes of this exercise I think some of my real ball modeling will probably not get me very far though. The different looks and usage theories will likley be ignored in favor of raw stats.


Well, I want to get raw stats out there first to keep things objective. Then I assume there will be adjustments. This thread is going to be my personal process of trying to rate the other 13 teams in the league. I think, for example that Westlake's rotation looks real good on paper, but he has 4 deadballers, including pre 1900 pitchers.

The top innings guy I see in this league is probably Feller who averaged 300+ in a high offensive era, and I think Feller gets maybe 230-240 in our setting.

Also, I want to adjust the starters to a fielding neutral ERA+ if at all possible. There are a few guys who's ERA+ are 10 points higher or lower than in a fielding neutral setting.

In another example where subjectivity will matter, Lyle brings my bullpen ERA+ down about 14 points, but with 101 innings by a lefty, he definitely improves it. BBPro showed that starters moved to the pen average a 25% decrease in ERA. A 140 ERA+ starter with 200 innings would be a 185 reliever with around 80 innings. And cut Lyle to 70 IP and he's probably 180+ as well.

[leecemark]

--I know this thread is just about the numbers, I didn't mean to criticize the work you are putting in. I'm just saying that I've been taking an approach to building my team which is not strictly base on the stats. I've taken guys who I think fit well together as a team, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I've avoided guys with LQ questions for the most part. I've tried to get a bunch of different types of pitchers to make an effective relief core. I don't expect that approach to be well rewarded come evaluation time. Or at least I will need a more persuasive sales pitch than guys with flashier ERA+.
--Realistically, we've got pure 9th inning guys and guys were were restrictly to a large extent to having the platoon advantage posting huge ERA+ that probably wouldn't hold up if we are asking more of them in this league. Or we've got guys who were asked to do more in their time who would probably be better if used in those optimum conditions. We've got SP who were able to cruise through many of their innings and who didn't have to contend with the long ball who may be MUCH less valuable than their number would suggest in this league. Conversely we'e got some old time starters who probably had their numbers dragged down some by being used so hard that would be better in this setting. Or guys who were pretty good starters, but might have been great in relief roles had that been vakued in thier time.

[brett]

Also, the stats are really important. I don't think people realize how great someone like Dotel or Kinder or Linzy were without the numbers. Then we would be going purely on reputation which would simply line up with the order that people got drafted give or take a few mistakes.

[brett]

An interesting finding as I work through the offensive numbers. I have only run one team: Wade's, and his team OPS+ is 164.9 which happens to be the same ERA+ as EH. (Since they are both approximately proportional to offense produced and allowed they would appear to be a wash on paper).

Now of course, 30% of innings may go to the bullpen, and Wade's team is somewhat lacking in all around speed, and defense will also matter. Wade still has to pick up one starter, which may drop him to around 144 or so (if he gets the right guy) so EH would need an offense on par with 144 to match (which he might do as well). Wade still needs a couple of lefties in the pen though I think, but his bullpen is hanging up there too.

Speed-not counting steals-should be worth up to about 10 OPS+ points for the top baserunners. Steals SHOULD make up up to 16-18 points for the very best, but it might be down to around 10 in this setting, but there are still about 20 points to be made on speed. Slow guys might be -10 as well (based on known values for modern guys).

Defense can also theoretically be worth about 20 ERA+ points to a team, but that would be a team of true gold glovers.

Also, if TSS gets the right 2 starters, his ERA+ will be above 150. I haven't dared to calculate his OPS+ yet. 170 or so I think. Still, speed may cut into that. And will there be any relievers left?

I don't want to turn this into a pure numbers game, but I thought it was intersting.

[ElHalo]

An interesting finding as I work through the offensive numbers. I have only run one team: Wade's, and his team OPS+ is 164.9 which happens to be the same ERA+ as EH. (Since they are both approximately proportional to offense produced and allowed they would appear to be a wash on paper).

Now of course, 30% of innings may go to the bullpen, and Wade's team is somewhat lacking in all around speed, and defense will also matter. Wade still has to pick up one starter, which may drop him to around 144 or so (if he gets the right guy) so EH would need an offense on par with 144 to match (which he might do as well). Wade still needs a couple of lefties in the pen though I think, but his bullpen is hanging up there too.


Just doing a rough thumbnail sketch of what my guys' OPS+'s are (at work and don't have my spreadsheets), the eight starters I have so far (without any era adjustments or anything) average out to about 153. I still have one position to fill (SS), so I would need to get a SS with at least a 72 OPS+ to beat 144.

Also remember that, while Wade's bullpen ERA+ isn't too terribly far behind mine, he's 140 IP short of me (four of my five guys have more IP than his highest guy, with the only exception being my second, situational lefty... he doesn't have any so far), so there's some ground to be made up there.

I'll relatively happy with my team. I haven't crunched the numbers, but so far I think your team might be best on numbers.

[brett]

One thing that I am happy with is that as of now, this is not an "offensive" league-largely because of the density of good relievers.

With an assumption of relievers garnering 30% of IP's the league ERA+ is about 154 with a little above average fielders.

The league OPS+ looks like its about 155 give or take a few points as well.

With the rotations, starters, and first 4 out of the pen pretty much chosen, that is really important to me because of my base-stealers. It looks like base-stealing can pretty much be taken at face value-though I'm not sure what to do with the deadballers. I have read in the history forum that Collins was actually a good rate base stealer (probably high 70's), but that about half of all CS recorded were on botched hit and runs.

I can either assume he was a high 70s base stealer, and Cobb at least low 80s, or I can assume that they went from first to third a lot more on hit and run attempts in their time. Either way its probably the same.

Also I'll have to see if some of the better baserunners of the 30s-50s might have stolen more. Jackie Robinson at least should have been good for 50 in his prime.

And really no amount of number crunching can totally deal with lefty/righty issues and platooning potential, team chemistry, strikeout versus groundout pitchers etc, showing different looks with pitchers etc.

I am not sure if I have time to check on pitcher's defense neutral ERA+ unfortunately. And how a 120 innning reliever translates to 70 innings is really an unknown.

[Wade8813]

Also remember that, while Wade's bullpen ERA+ isn't too terribly far behind mine, he's 140 IP short of me (four of my five guys have more IP than his highest guy, with the only exception being my second, situational lefty... he doesn't have any so far), so there's some ground to be made up there.Oh, don't worry about by bullpen.

[ElHalo]

Oh, don't worry about by bullpen.

It's certainly a great bullpen so far, but you need two lefties averaging about 65-70 IP a piece with solid ERA's... or one of the two or three guys I've been looking at.

[brett]

It's certainly a great bullpen so far, but you need two lefties averaging about 65-70 IP a piece with solid ERA's... or one of the two or three guys I've been looking at.

Don't you think that 2 is still necessary? I mean you can bring in a lefty to shut down 2 left handed hitters in an inning, then go with a righty but still have another lefty to face a key left handed batter later on?


I wouldn't want to go with 1 lefty no matter how many innings.

[Wade8813]

I think everyone's going to have at least 2 LHRP. I'll probably have 3.

And in my case, Papelbon may as well be a lefty, if you look at his splits.

[brett]

Here's a beginning look at offense. It basically is only rating the teams #1 offense at this time, and if other players will be in a platoon type position, they need to explain that.

It doesn't factor in lefty/righty balance, steals or extra bases gained or lost due to baserunning. It doesn't include league quality adjustments of any kind.

I ran Wade and TSS for now. It will probably take me 3-4 days to pound these out.

[brett]

I figured Wade and TSS were about equal in OPS+ before the trade.

Actually, though its not really time to put numbers on it, with baserunning and LQ they are about equal. TSS has a little above average running team, and Wade somewhat below average (about -2 to his team OPS+) and TSS has a little more LQ for his hitters. Again, when I subjectively analyze them I will do my best to put numbers on them.

[Wade8813]

Although one thing to remember is that the difference of 3.9 OPS+ between our teams seems insignificant, but it's the equivalent of about 35.1 OPS+ in one person, which is approximately the difference between Lajoie and Melvin Mora. Which IS pretty meaningful.

[brett]

Although one thing to remember is that the difference of 3.9 OPS+ between our teams seems insignificant, but it's the equivalent of about 35.1 OPS+ in one person, which is approximately the difference between Lajoie and Melvin Mora. Which IS pretty meaningful.

I think 3.9 points for a team is pretty meaningful though LQ has to be factored in somehow but at least in my evaluation I want defense and fielding to factor in appropriately. I think that a couple of teams might be +5 to +7 for baserunning. I don't see a team that would be more than -1 or -2 overall. And we still need to see if the league balance favors higher or lower than average scoring.

[Wade8813]

I think 3.9 points for a team is pretty meaningful though LQ has to be factored in somehow but at least in my evaluation I want defense and fielding to factor in appropriately. I think that a couple of teams might be +5 to +7 for baserunning. I don't see a team that would be more than -1 or -2 overall. And we still need to see if the league balance favors higher or lower than average scoring. Oh, I agree. My point was just that 3.9 seems miniscule at first glance, until you realize that it's multiplied by 9 slots in the batting order. When I first saw the numbers you put up, I was confused by how close TSS was to me, until I realized that I had been looking at it as a cumulative number, as opposed to the average for all 9 players.

[The Splendid Splinter]

Although one thing to remember is that the difference of 3.9 OPS+ between our teams seems insignificant, but it's the equivalent of about 35.1 OPS+ in one person, which is approximately the difference between Lajoie and Melvin Mora. Which IS pretty meaningful.

Or the difference between Thomas and Murray basically... but the thing is that I improved on defense with I Rod and Murray playing (if i remember correctly, my infield FRAA is higher then yours as a team). also more speed as well. I agree it is meaningful and when you look at the whole thing, it's pretty darn close. We're not even counting the bench players yet either and I'm done with mine like 9 rounds ago haha.

[Wade8813]

Yeah, your IF FRAA is great, although IIRC, your OF fielding is really bad, and it's a big disadvantage to have your entire OF that bad.

[The Splendid Splinter]

Yeah, your IF FRAA is great, although IIRC, your OF fielding is really bad, and it's a big disadvantage to have your entire OF that bad.

Bonds is exactly average... Giles is like -1.6... Ott is like 4.8 then 4th OF Eric Davis is 5.4. I don't know if it's a big disadvantage really. It's basically average, which is doable with the type of offense I'm getting from them. Maybe comparing to the other teams in this league, it's really bad.

also it depends on stadium i draft as well. might get an OF that helps them.

[Wade8813]

Having a CFer that's even a little negative hurts, since it's such an important position. Many would argue that Bonds' fielding gets overrated by FRAA during those years. And I'd want at least one OFer who's a good fielder.

[brett]

Having a CFer that's even a little negative hurts, since it's such an important position. Many would argue that Bonds' fielding gets overrated by FRAA during those years (I won't hold it against you, but many will). And I'd want at least one OFer who's a good fielder.


In discussions recently on the History Forum, it was discussed that Mel Ott was probably one of the best defensive outfielders of his time. His career FRAA is really good.

Giles was -18 as a centerfielder in only about 250 games. That would be about -12 per 162 if he played there every inning. -12 FRAA will bring your pitching staff era+ down about 1.6 points ie 154.0 becoming 152.4.

If you wanted to look at it in terms of offense, it would be about 1.6 OPS+ points as well.


Ew. Thomas is about -16 per 162. At least Collins and Crawford will be +16-19 each.

By the way Wade, you get a little better FRAA for Banks if you go back one year. I'm not sure which 5 you used. It drops his OPS+ to 146, but he is around a +10 shortstop I think.

I still need to add up all the OPS+'s and the FRAAs for the starting 9 to at least get a baseline, so if the draft drags a little that's ok with me.

[Wade8813]

Ott being great for career is good to know, but what matters is for the specific years chosen.

[The Splendid Splinter]

In discussions recently on the History Forum, it was discussed that Mel Ott was probably one of the best defensive outfielders of his time. His career FRAA is really good.

Giles was -18 as a centerfielder in only about 250 games. That would be about -12 per 162 if he played there every inning. -12 FRAA will bring your pitching staff era+ down about 1.6 points ie 154.0 becoming 152.4.

If you wanted to look at it in terms of offense, it would be about 1.6 OPS+ points as well.

I still need to add up all the OPS+'s and the FRAAs for the starting 9 to at least get a baseline, so if the draft drags a little that's ok with me.

Yeah I figured Giles would be about even in terms of between his offense and defense. Also I know he won't play CF the whole time... Eric Davis would sub there some there, then Giles to LF, Bonds to DH, Greenberg to 1B at times. Also if I get a small outfield, Giles won't be as bad as he really is. Ott is still good in RF the years I selected for him. Also he played like 200 games at 3B in the years I selected for him and he did good there.

[Wade8813]

That's true. You do have a lot of flexibility with your bench (although obviously you're giving up a bit of hitting when Davis is subbed). Ott playing 3B is the main reason I was hoping to be able to pick him.

[The Splendid Splinter]

That's true. You do have a lot of flexibility with your bench (although obviously you're giving up a bit of hitting when Davis is subbed). Ott playing 3B is the main reason I was hoping to be able to pick him.

Which is why I was willing to trade Boggs after figuring out Ott can play 3rd for me. Yes I would be giving a bit in hitting (but after his defense and baserunning taken into account, also Greenberg replace Murray at 1B so I upgrade a little there), it does make up some ground or make it about equal. Like you said, I have a lot of flexibility which is something I look for in my team. Look at my team in the first all time draft, they had a lot of flexibility as well.

[Wade8813]

Yeah. I wanted to trade for Boggs, but I feel there should be a certain minimum threshold for how bad my SP is, and I felt it'd hurt my team to much to sacrifice that much pitching. Also, because the positions involved weren't the same, it would mean I'd have another player that I didn't know what to do with.

[The Splendid Splinter]

Yeah. I wanted to trade for Boggs, but I feel there should be a certain minimum threshold for how bad my SP is, and I felt it'd hurt my team to much to sacrifice that much pitching. Also, because the positions involved weren't the same, it would mean I'd have another player that I didn't know what to do with.

Yeah... True I understand. As far for Groh... he would've been on your bench and could played 2B/SS a couple games/3B... would've been a valuable bench player.

[brett]

Yeah I figured Giles would be about even in terms of between his offense and defense. Also I know he won't play CF the whole time... Eric Davis would sub there some there, then Giles to LF, Bonds to DH, Greenberg to 1B at times. Also if I get a small outfield, Giles won't be as bad as he really is. Ott is still good in RF the years I selected for him. Also he played like 200 games at 3B in the years I selected for him and he did good there.


I think that Murray's defense was a huge benefit to your team. He averaged about +10 FRAA per year from '81-'85. Thomas was around -12 per year and thats for only about 75% of the time he played at first. Greenberg is a little above average.

[Wade8813]

Groh barely played 2B/SS during the years I picked him. And since I plan to have a large bullpen, the space on my bench is very limited.

[leecemark]

--if you stick Ott at 3B an already subpar defensive will be that much worse. Well maybe not too much if it means you get a good defensive CF in the lineup and move Giles to RF.

[The Splendid Splinter]

--if you stick Ott at 3B an already subpar defensive will be that much worse. Well maybe not too much if it means you get a good defensive CF in the lineup and move Giles to RF.

yeah my defense would go down from Boggs (who is above average) to Ott at 3B, but he can play there if needed to and his offense would've offset the defense. if i couldnt get a good starter from boggs, then next place i was going to look at was CF who was better defensively. Also I got Jennings at SS who might be better than Ozzie in their 5 years that putting Ott wouldn't have been as bad as say if I got someone like Larkin there.

[brett]

yeah my defense would go down from Boggs (who is above average) to Ott at 3B, but he can play there if needed to and his offense would've offset the defense. if i couldnt get a good starter from boggs, then next place i was going to look at was CF who was better defensively. Also I got Jennings at SS who might be better than Ozzie in their 5 years that putting Ott wouldn't have been as bad as say if I got someone like Larkin there.

Boggs wasn't a very good fielder, in my recollection for the early years. He improved more in the mid 90s.

BY THE WAY
I've updated 2 more offenses for now including my own-though it might change a little. I had to take slightly lower OPS+ runs for Collins, Crawford and Edmonds to get much better defensive runs, but I also am pleasantly suprised because I think my lineup is about +7 overall for baserunning and steals even with Thomas being a -10 which is basically the lowest possible. I'm not sure if he was that bad.

An all time great base stealing season like a couple of Vince Coleman's are about +25 for base-stealing. I figure Raines and Cobb at about +15 for basestealing. An all time great base-running season is about +10. I think Cobb would be there, and Raines and Collins close to that. Molitor probably +5 for both steals and baserunning.

I don't want to get to judgmental on the baserunning yet, but I think that with my overall baserunning, a 155 OPS+ is good. I also will be somewhat above average fielding.

[Erik Bedard]

153.8 isn't bad. When factoring in defense (Rolen, Bagwell, DiMaggio, Yaz all all-time great level for their positions) and baserunning (Henderson!), it should go up. Plus I don't have a top guy to bump my total up like the other three who have been done already.

[brett]

153.8 isn't bad. When factoring in defense (Rolen, Bagwell, DiMaggio, Yaz all all-time great level for their positions) and baserunning (Henderson!), it should go up. Plus I don't have a top guy to bump my total up like the other three who have been done already.


Grich is an all-time great fielder too, at least he was for part of his career. I took his best 5 years hitting though so if you want earlier years, his hitting might come down a little.

Its so hard to tell. Pre 1900 hitters will take hits to their OPS+. Maybe more than 20 points. LQ will take down pre-integration players some.

Lefty/Righty lineup balance is important.

Bench is important.

Clearly, defense, baserunning, bench and league quality issues can have a huge effect.

Teams with lots of pitcher innings should get an edge, especially at over 500 in relief.

I think the stats will at least let me cut down the other teams to a top 5 or 6 who are all going to be really close.

[Wade8813]

Teams with lots of pitcher innings should get an edge, especially at over 500 in relief. I'd say that it's more important to have big total IP than IP specifically from bullpen (maybe 1550+ total?)

[brett]

I'd say that it's more important to have big total IP than IP specifically from bullpen (maybe 1550+ total?)

The reason I am looking at 500 from the pen is because even though the overall run environment may not be high (with our relievers and defense, I think that it may be below 4.5 rpg) starters just can't throw that many pitches, and innings against great offensive players.

Pedro for example averaged about 210 in his prime. That was against average hitters. Against these guys, thats maybe 190. There is a lot of mental wear and tear that goes into facing all of those quality hitters.

I don't think that any starter will go much more that 220 against these lineups. Also, not all innings are created equal. A deadballer with 350 is probably a liveballer with 270 and probably is at 220-240 MAX in this league.

When I analyze the other teams, I will basically categorize starters based on how their innings compared to their period. A guy who was typically at or near the top of his league will be maybe 230. A guy who was maybe hovering in the top 10 IP might be 210. That's what a top pitcher often goes today in the high offensive league. A guy who is not near the top 10 in his league might be 190 and a really suspect guy might even go as low as 170.

I haven't figured out just how to do this, but it will be based on where they would have ranked in IP in their period. I do think that top pitchers from around 1940-1975 or so were probably overweighted with innings if they were going 350+ and their ERA+ may have been better had they gone less, but they were still outdoing the next guy. That was more of a lingering effect of the 4 man rotation.

Maybe I will need to go back to WARP III scores at least in part.

[Wade8813]

I agree, pitchers' IP will go down. My point was simply that someone like CLD, with eight billion IP from his starters, might only need 400 from his bullpen.

[brett]

I agree, pitchers' IP will go down. My point was simply that someone like CLD, with eight billion IP from his starters, might only need 400 from his bullpen.

Yes I agree there. Alexander, and Feller were absolutely IP Gods in their times. Spahn and Roberts are up there, though somewhat a product of the era. I think his rotation is good for 1100 so he needs less in the bullpen. I also think that Feller and Spahn and Roberts may have had a little better ERA+ scores naturally from a 5 man rotation.

Important though, are we considering a 10 inch mound or 15 inch mound?

[AstrosFan]

Brett, I have Ken Singleton as my third OF.

[brett]

Brett, I have Ken Singleton as my third OF.

I'll get on it tonight.

[brett]

Here is the beginning of the work on the rotations with the defense adjusted relative ERAs. The baseline ERA is set at 4.5 which makes them look a little high for now. I will probably re-set them to a basline of 4.0 which I consider to be more "average".