Page 3 of 37 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 726

Thread: Progressing Toward Better Stats Thread

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florissant, Mo.
    Posts
    25,691
    Quote Originally Posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
    Does that same issue exist in WAA?
    The only difference between WAR and WAA is the baseline used. Take out "replacement runs" and you have WAA. So yes, the same issue will exist in WAA.
    1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

    1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

    1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


    The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
    The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
    The only difference between WAR and WAA is the baseline used. Take out "replacement runs" and you have WAA. So yes, the same issue will exist in WAA.
    So you're telling me that you can use WAR; but just change the baseline to value greatness a bit more than career value, longevity, or simply showing up with a uniform on, and it will essentially be WAA? THAT'S the only difference?
    Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 05-01-2014 at 09:02 PM.
    "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

    ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
    Does that same issue exist in WAA?

    Yes, if you play in a 5 run park, versus another player in a 4 run park, you have to create or save 5 runs for every 4 that they do at home to get a win in WAA.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
    So you're telling me that you can use WAR; but just change the baseline to value greatness a bit more than career value, longevity, or simply showing up with a uniform on, and it will essentially be WAA? THAT'S the only difference?
    WAR IS WAA, plus you get a chunk of wins (2.5 per full season) for playing average. It is easy to lose WAA if you are below average for some seasons, but you have to be pretty bad to lose WAR.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
    Ok, here's Mr. George Herman......all 1914 PA were at home, that's why it starts in 1915.

    After picking a few more specific players, I'll have the full excel file with AL OPS+ and will post it.

    Attachment 138325

    A couple quick questions Brett.....

    1. I know we're removing the pitcher's batting by looking at league OPS+ but shouldn't we somehow attempt to replace that pitcher with a "DH" type batter to make a level playing field for later eras? Otherwise we have just eight hitters?

    2. Would it be more revealing or necessary to look at sOPS/650 or /162 for shorter career guys, or since it's a rate thing, it doesn't matter?
    2) Doesn't matter, its a rate. OPS+ is the same no matter how many PAs you have.

    1) Putting in a DH would have a very small effect to bring down national leaguers OPS+, by maybe a little over 1%. But its very complicated. In the NL we get pinch hitters who might be better situationally than the DH. They count, as far as I can tell (though I have asked before if a pinch hitter bats for the pitcher does it go into the league rates for OPS+, or is considered to be a pitcher at bat?) The DH might have a 110 OPS+. Pinch hitters are certainly worse, but maybe the guy who DH's in the AL is starting in the NL. There are still as many roster spots, so there is somebody with value somewhere. And WAR/WAA accounts for it by slightly lowering baselines in the AL. I would be interested in seeing AL versus NL batting stats excluding pitchers.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by brett View Post
    I am posting Dimaggio's composite sOPS+ for home and away, independent of home offensive environment (ie park factor).

    This shows differences in Dimaggio's production at home versus all players in their home park, and with their home offensive setting put at the league average, and his road production versus all players on the road.

    In other words, when road OPS+ is higher than home OPS+ it strongly suggests that the player SPECIFICALLY benefitted in relative production from his home park. It cancels out effects that a park has on ALL players such as Coors field just boosting offense as a whole.

    I have also removed pitchers to make it consistent with OPS+ total. The only things it doesn't do is account for a player not having to hit in their home park on the road, and not facing their own pitching staff.



    Code:
    Road Pas	Road sOPS+	PAxsOPS+
    362	        163	                59006
    339	        201	                68139
    334	        145	                48430
    259	        242	                62678
    305	        180	                54900
    289	        221	                63869
    346	        186	                64356
    284	        192	                54528
    282	        155	                43710
    340	        189	                64260
    173	        213	                36849
    328	        196	                64288
    217	        125	                27125
    
                    3858	                 712138
    712138/3858=184.6 Career road sOPS+ including pitchers

    League OPS+ with pitchers is 94 in his seasons so to remove pitchers multiply his OPS+ by .94 to get:

    173.51 sOPS+

    His overall was 155 so to get the home sOPS+ take 155 x 2 minus 173.5 to get 136.49

    So Dimaggio had a 173.5 road relative OPS+ and a 136.5 home OPS+. Technically we should round them both to the 1s place, which would be 174 and 136. Quite telling of what his park did.
    Is it .94? I get a better fit with the data using .92. The adjustment isn't a constant is it? Wouldn't it vary over time with pitchers worse today, and better hitters back then?

    Also, since I am using the data, it's a small thing but the 1947 road PA was 307.
    Last edited by drstrangelove; 05-02-2014 at 04:41 PM.
    "It's better to look good, than be good."

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florissant, Mo.
    Posts
    25,691
    Quote Originally Posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
    So you're telling me that you can use WAR; but just change the baseline to value greatness a bit more than career value, longevity, or simply showing up with a uniform on, and it will essentially be WAA? THAT'S the only difference?
    Yes. Any issues somebody has with how WAR deals with position, defense, ANYTHING will be the same issues with WAA. The ONLY difference is the comparison baseline. ONLY. . You can take the same formula and compare to any baseline you want to. Wins Above Good. Wins Above All Star. Wins Above Cobb. Whatever you want.
    1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

    1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

    1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


    The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
    The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    16,522
    Here's Double X

    Foxx-sOPS+.jpg

    League OPS+ file.....

    Brett, you weren't kiddin' about the league OPS+ not changin' much. Just seems like it's not fully accounting for run environment. Heck, the '68 NL is the same as '28 NL.

    Can we use something like innings pitched per earned run instead? Looking at that, 1968 would show to have 3.01 IP/ER and 1928 NL would be 2.25 IP/ER. Just a thought.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

    ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
    Here's Double X

    Foxx-sOPS+.jpg

    League OPS+ file.....

    Brett, you weren't kiddin' about the league OPS+ not changin' much. Just seems like it's not fully accounting for run environment. Heck, the '68 NL is the same as '28 NL.

    Can we use something like innings pitched per earned run instead? Looking at that, 1968 would show to have 3.01 IP/ER and 1928 NL would be 2.25 IP/ER. Just a thought.

    OPS+ is set at 100 each season. the only problem is that sOPS+ keeps pitchers in the league numbers, but traditionally we take pitchers out. The .94 just takes them back out. The .94 should not change because of run environment, it just says that removing pitchers raises the league production by about 6% per plate appearance. It is only a measure of pitchers batting effect on hitting, not run setting.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by brett View Post
    OPS+ is set at 100 each season. the only problem is that sOPS+ keeps pitchers in the league numbers, but traditionally we take pitchers out. The .94 just takes them back out. The .94 should not change because of run environment, it just says that removing pitchers raises the league production by about 6% per plate appearance. It is only a measure of pitchers batting effect on hitting, not run setting.
    Just like there's different levels of position hitters, there's different levels of hitting pitchers. Some get bunts down more often, move runners along, put the ball in play more often, etc...but you know that.

    So..its' fine to remove pitchers. Shouldn't there be a step AFTER that though? Let's remove pitchers, and THEN adjust to run environment. There's no reason why the 1927 AL should have the same league OPS+ as the '59 and '60 AL.
    "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

    ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
    Just like there's different levels of position hitters, there's different levels of hitting pitchers. Some get bunts down more often, move runners along, put the ball in play more often, etc...but you know that.

    So..its' fine to remove pitchers. Shouldn't there be a step AFTER that though? Let's remove pitchers, and THEN adjust to run environment. There's no reason why the 1927 AL should have the same league OPS+ as the '59 and '60 AL.
    Sultan, OPS+ has already been adjusted to the league run environment. Ruth's road sOPS+ scores, and overall OPS+ has already been done relative to run environment. Same with someone in 1968. The 93, 94, 95 is the effect of pitchers, and yes it is a little different from year to year.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by brett View Post
    Sultan, OPS+ has already been adjusted to the league run environment. Ruth's road sOPS+ scores, and overall OPS+ has already been done relative to run environment. Same with someone in 1968. The 93, 94, 95 is the effect of pitchers, and yes it is a little different from year to year.
    If it's already been fully adjusted, then why do we constantly see people still adjusting for era? They adjust even after seeing these numbers that are already adjusted. I'm trying to get to a place where we've adjusted all the way, and then some.
    "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

    ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Second Base
    Posts
    17,439
    Quote Originally Posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
    Yes. Any issues somebody has with how WAR deals with position, defense, ANYTHING will be the same issues with WAA. The ONLY difference is the comparison baseline. ONLY. . You can take the same formula and compare to any baseline you want to. Wins Above Good. Wins Above All Star. Wins Above Cobb. Whatever you want.
    Damn, that would be ugly. There would be a whole mess of negative numbers all over the place!
    "It ain't braggin' if you can do it." Dizzy Dean

  14. #54
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Williamsport PA
    Posts
    4,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr28 View Post
    Damn, that would be ugly. There would be a whole mess of negative numbers all over the place!
    And I am sure the subtraction would be doubled if the player was a first baseman.
    Your Second Base Coach
    Garvey, Lopes, Russell, and Cey started 833 times and the Dodgers went 498-335, for a .598 winning percentage. That’s equal to a team going 97-65 over a season. On those occasions when at least one of them missed his start, the Dodgers were 306-267-1, which is a .534 clip. That works out to a team going 87-75. So having all four of them added 10 wins to the Dodgers per year.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5hCIvMule0

  15. #55
    So, I have the PA, HR and sOPS+ H/A split data for most of the RH batters for 1936-51 for the Yankees. (I only tabulated for position players with 100+ PA in a season.) A few pitcher seasons (Chandler and Ruffing) were left off plus all the RH seasons where a batter had less than 100 PA. There was one player in 1950 who split time with the Yanks and someone else, and with just ~160 PA, I just left him off.

    Code:
    Home                    
                 PA   HR   sOPS+  
    DiMaggio    3,790 148  141.6       
    All other  16,047 234   97.4


    Code:
    Away                    
                 PA    HR   sOPS+  
    DiMaggio    3,883  213  171.5       
    All other  17,322  307  104.1

    What I noticed were two things:

    1) YS did not hurt "all other" RH hitters for HR as much as Joe D. While "all other" hit 31% more total HR on the road, Joe D was at 44%. However, batters on winning teams, usually bat more on the road, so totals are misleading. In fact, once you adjust for the H/A splits in PA, "All other" averaged 21.5% more HR per PA on the road (68.6 vs 56.4), but Joe D averaged 40.5% more (25.6 vs 18.2)

    2) YS did not have anywhere near the OPS+ impact on "all other" as on DiMaggio. "All other" was 6.8% better on the road, but Joe D was 21.1% better.


    This leads to more questions of course. Why was DiMaggio in particular hurt while others were hurt far less? Were others making adjustments? Was YS only hurting one type of hitter? (Joe Gordon, a legitimate RH power hitter, had a road HR rate per PA that was only 8.6% higher than his YS rate----28.8 vs 26.5----so he was affected even less than the remainder of the "All Other" group.)


    As a note, I examined the 1940-42 splits and it looks more like a .93 adjustment for pitchers. Also, I have a correction of the 1947 road PAs.
    Last edited by drstrangelove; 05-04-2014 at 02:39 AM.
    "It's better to look good, than be good."

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by drstrangelove View Post
    So, I have the PA, HR and sOPS+ H/A split data for most of the RH batters for 1936-51 for the Yankees. (I only tabulated for position players with 100+ PA in a season.) A few pitcher seasons (Chandler and Ruffing) were left off plus all the RH seasons where a batter had less than 100 PA. There was one player in 1950 who split time with the Yanks and someone else, and with just ~160 PA, I just left him off.

    Code:
    Home                    
                 PA   HR   sOPS+  
    DiMaggio    3,790 148  141.6       
    All other  16,047 234   97.4


    Code:
    Away                    
                 PA    HR   sOPS+  
    DiMaggio    3,883  213  171.5       
    All other  17,322  307  104.1

    What I noticed were two things:

    1) YS did not hurt "all other" RH hitters for HR as much as Joe D. While "all other" hit 31% more total HR on the road, Joe D was at 44%. However, batters on winning teams, usually bat more on the road, so totals are misleading. In fact, once you adjust for the H/A splits in PA, "All other" averaged 21.5% more HR per PA on the road (68.6 vs 56.4), but Joe D averaged 40.5% more (25.6 vs 18.2)

    2) YS did not have anywhere near the OPS+ impact on "all other" as on DiMaggio. "All other" was 6.8% better on the road, but Joe D was 21.1% better.


    This leads to more questions of course. Why was DiMaggio in particular hurt while others were hurt far less? Were others making adjustments? Was YS only hurting one type of hitter? (Joe Gordon, a legitimate RH power hitter, had a road HR rate per PA that was only 8.6% higher than his YS rate----28.8 vs 26.5----so he was affected even less than the remainder of the "All Other" group.)


    As a note, I examined the 1940-42 splits and it looks more like a .93 adjustment for pitchers. Also, I have a correction of the 1947 road PAs.

    That is interesting, but also keep in mind that since home runs make up a larger percentage of Dimaggio's OPS+, it can effect his OPS+ even more. If a 30 home run guy is reduced to 24 its a greater affect than if a 10 home run guy is reduced to 8. Also, Dimaggio hit a LOT more triples at home, so it looks to me like he was having a margin of his home runs removed based on distance breakdowns and not necessarily on approach (at least as much). If we had the average guys as a group hitting a few IPHRs over the outfielders head, while perhaps they just played deeper on Dimaggio, it could matter.

    Do you have any idea how many of the home runs hit in YS were IPHRs also?

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by brett View Post
    That is interesting, but also keep in mind that since home runs make up a larger percentage of Dimaggio's OPS+, it can effect his OPS+ even more. If a 30 home run guy is reduced to 24 its a greater affect than if a 10 home run guy is reduced to 8. Also, Dimaggio hit a LOT more triples at home, so it looks to me like he was having a margin of his home runs removed based on distance breakdowns and not necessarily on approach (at least as much). If we had the average guys as a group hitting a few IPHRs over the outfielders head, while perhaps they just played deeper on Dimaggio, it could matter.

    Do you have any idea how many of the home runs hit in YS were IPHRs also?
    There is no breakdown on BBRef for IPHR by season, and a lot of the players split time with other teams. But if you allocate their career IPHR as a proportion based upon the % of HR hit at home in 1936-51 in my list to total HR hit in their career, it adds up to 13 YS IPHR by the "all other" group.

    There's another way to do it of course. What is the most possible if YS created an insane amount more than any other stadium?

    a) Lazzeri hit 8 IPHR, but he hit 98% of his HR as a Yankee. Allocating 1 to him makes sense since 1936-37 was about 1/8th of all his Yankee HR.
    b) Bauer hit 7 IPHR, but he hit 96% of his HR as a Yankee. Allocating no more than 2 to him makes sense since 1949-51 was about 1/5th of all his Yankee HR.
    c) Chapman had 15 IPHR, but he only hit 1 HR as a Yankee in YS, so the most he could have is 1.
    d) Let's make all of Crosetti's career IPHR at YS, so that's 4.
    e) Let's do the same for Powell (1), Glenn (1), Dahlgren (3), Gordon (1), Steinweiss (2), Hemsley (1). Total is 9.

    So the most it could probably be is 17. So the total IPHR by RH at YS in 1936-51 (excluding DiMaggio) is probably in the 13-17 range. So that is 7% of all the HR not hit by DiMaggio in 1936-51.

    If you take Dimaggio's 3 IPHR and assume all were at YS, and add that to half of his "extra" triples, you get 3+8, or 11. If all those "would" have been IPHR, you get 11 IPHR, and then 148+8 HR at YS. In that case, 11/156 is 7%. So, although perhaps coincidental, it's possible that either a faster runner, or a less deep outfielder could have matched the same IPHR rate.

    There's a speed factor as well, since depending on actual raw speed, one player might get farther than another player, even if the ball went just as far over an outfielder's head.

    Until we get location data for players in that period, there's no way to know if players changed their approach.
    Last edited by drstrangelove; 05-04-2014 at 03:30 PM.
    "It's better to look good, than be good."

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    16,522
    I was curious to see how this sOPS+ thing would handle Piazza, who has a 91 to 108 home/road tOPS.

    The home/road edge is significantly reduced. Guess you were right Brett, when you said tOPS has serious flaws.

    If the expected home advantage here is 2% (or whatever it is), then how do we handle a 3.71% road edge?
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 05-04-2014 at 05:53 PM.
    "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

    ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett
    In other words, when road OPS+ is higher than home OPS+ it strongly suggests that the player SPECIFICALLY benefitted in relative production from his home park.
    Did you mean, benefitted from the road parks?
    "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

    ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    16,522
    Bench(sOPS+).jpg
    -----------------------------------
    "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

    ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

Page 3 of 37 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •