Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

*Babe Ruth Thread*

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
    Just used the RC on bbref when you click on advanced stats.

    So do you have to add up each individual year (league PA and RC) during a players career and then get an overall average?
    If RC is a legitimate accounting of run production, I should be able to take Ruth's RC/PA compared to the league RUNS per PA (because while a player may create runs in many ways, for the whole league an RC should result in a run in theory). It doesn't have to be exact.

    So for example in 1920 Ruth had 200 RC in 616 plate appearances. That is 0.3247 RC per plate appearance. The league scored 5869 in 47806 plate appearances, or 0.1227 RC per PA.

    Ignoring park factors, that would make Ruth .3247/.1227 at good as the league on average or a 265 RC+ (like an OPS+ score). His OPS+ was 255 so it looks like another way of looking at his relative productivity.


    I could get his RC+ for each season and then weigh each one by his plate appearances, or I could find the league runs per plate appearance. there is no "correct" way to weight them. If I weight them by plate appearances then seasons that occurred on a higher offensive team, or league will get weighed more, but the same is true of other rate stats anyway.

    Here are a few seasons RC+ for starters. Also dividing them by his park factor would be the equivalent of adjusting them to his park so I'll do that too.

    This is with 1 year park factors
    1919 207
    1920 260
    1921 217
    1923 233
    1924 225
    1927 225

    This is actually a better stat than OPS+ in my opinion because OPS+ is just contrived and happens to correspond to runs, but gets worse at extremes. This is giving Ruth a set amount of value per event, not just estimating his productivity from rate stats that become less accurate at extremes.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
      A lot of that went over my head Brett, but thank you for taking the time. I'm not interested JUST in Ruth, but in many of the consensus top players and how they compare. Is this something that can be used instead of, or in conjunction with OPS+ to better rank players?

      If you think it is something worthwhile, and you can run with it, that is awesome. I wish I had the stat brains you have. Keep it up!

      I think its a different, better variation of OPS+, basically how many times better than an average hitter was a certain hitter.

      What your stat, PAs per RC basically says about Ruth is that he used 3.9 PAs per RC. His league used about 8 PAs per run, so he was using about half as many PAs per run created than the league was, which is right on with a 200%, 200 OPS+ value hitter.

      On the other hand, by looking at the formula for RC which is just OB% x total bases, it does not look like it is any better than what OPS+ is doing.

      The best option would be to use the runs above average from WAR.

      It is also the simplest because we don't have to look at league rates (war already shows the conversion factors).

      So let's take Ruth 1920. He had 109 batting runs above average. He had 616 plate appearances. In 1920, 10.5 runs converts into 1 win. So 109 runs would be 10.4 wins. He produced 10.4 batting wins ABOVE AVERAGE, in 616 plate appearances, or 0.0169 batting WINS per plate appearance ABOVE AVERAGE.

      The league had 47806 plate appearances, and that netted a total of 614 wins for all teams, half of which would be from offense. that means the average player was getting 0.0128 offensive wins per plate appearance.

      We take Ruth's 0.0169 and add 0.0128 and then divide by 0.0128 and get 2.32 or a 232 rate of relative production for 1920.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
        Why do you keep referencing Babe's 1920? Granted, I think it's his best season, all things considered, but let's talk about career numbers and other players. I'm particularly interested in how lackluster Mays' numbers are compared to his era. His defense it overrated and I'm beginning to think his offense is. Show me something jedi statisical master Brett
        Well I wanted to see if the "batting wins" method seems to make sense, and so 1920 was just a gauge for that. Batting wins+ would be the most accurate and meaningful relative rate stat, preferrable to runs created or OPS+. I'll go with that but I'm not manic enough to do it all in one day. I'll start a thread on the stats forum using Batting wins+, and call the new stat BW+, but its only going to show what we know, that Ruth produced about double the runs of an average player per plate appearance.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by brett View Post
          Well I wanted to see if the "batting wins" method seems to make sense, and so 1920 was just a gauge for that. Batting wins+ would be the most accurate and meaningful relative rate stat, preferrable to runs created or OPS+. I'll go with that but I'm not manic enough to do it all in one day. I'll start a thread on the stats forum using Batting wins+, and call the new stat BW+, but its only going to show what we know, that Ruth produced about double the runs of an average player per plate appearance.
          LOL

          Ok Brett, I'm assuming you don't know what I mean, by 1920 being his most impressive year (outside of stats) and that doesn't really matter. Let's look at Ruth and beyond though. Let's look at Williams, Mays, Cobb, Gehrig, Wagner, Hornsby, etc....

          Thank you again for your time. I could never do those things.

          Comment


          • I'll start on Steve Balboni tonight.

            Anyway it sounds like you should be using the Babe metric. It simply rates all players on a 5 level scale:
            1) Suck; 2) Crap; 3) Puke; 4) OK; 5) Babe

            Most of the guys you mentioned are at the "OK" level.

            Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
            LOL

            Ok Brett, I'm assuming you don't know what I mean, by 1920 being his most impressive year (outside of stats) and that doesn't really matter. Let's look at Ruth and beyond though. Let's look at Williams, Mays, Cobb, Gehrig, Wagner, Hornsby, etc....

            Thank you again for your time. I could never do those things.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by brett View Post
              I'll start on Steve Balboni tonight.

              Anyway it sounds like you should be using the Babe metric. It simply rates all players on a 5 level scale:
              1) Suck; 2) Crap; 3) Puke; 4) OK; 5) Babe

              Most of the guys you mentioned are at the "OK" level.
              good one

              Comment


              • Does George know the game of baseball..................turns out Babe was right.
                Attached Files

                Comment


                • From: The Babe Ruth Story, as told to Bob Considine

                  "Before I leave the war years, I want to tell a story which I don't believe is very well known.

                  In the fading months of the war I was nearly called upon to act as a peace negotiator. My friend of long standing, Paul Carey, who served in the Navy during the war, was the author of the plan that would have sent me to the Pacific.

                  This country made frequent broadcasts to the Japanese people during the war, but without any great effect. After the Germans folded, we looked around for new methods of getting the Japs to quit committing suicide and surrender.

                  Carey thought of me because of the surprising popularity I had enjoyed during my trip to Japan in the middle 1930's. He submitted a plan whereby I was to be flown to Guam and there placed aboard a destroyer which was to be painted white.

                  The destroyer would have carried me to a point off the coast of Japan and I was to have made a series of broadcasts to the Japanese people. I was to appeal to their sporting instincts; tell them what we had in store for them if they didn't give up, and assure them that surrender was a lot better than annihilation.

                  The plan, of course, fell through. It just wasn't in keeping with the great overall plans of the Army, Navy and Air force. They had reached the ninth inning and they had their best sluggers coming up. But I wish I could have helped, someway."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
                    From: The Babe Ruth Story, as told to Bob Considine

                    "Before I leave the war years, I want to tell a story which I don't believe is very well known.

                    In the fading months of the war I was nearly called upon to act as a peace negotiator. My friend of long standing, Paul Carey, who served in the Navy during the war, was the author of the plan that would have sent me to the Pacific.

                    This country made frequent broadcasts to the Japanese people during the war, but without any great effect. After the Germans folded, we looked around for new methods of getting the Japs to quit committing suicide and surrender.

                    Carey thought of me because of the surprising popularity I had enjoyed during my trip to Japan in the middle 1930's. He submitted a plan whereby I was to be flown to Guam and there placed aboard a destroyer which was to be painted white.

                    The destroyer would have carried me to a point off the coast of Japan and I was to have made a series of broadcasts to the Japanese people. I was to appeal to their sporting instincts; tell them what we had in store for them if they didn't give up, and assure them that surrender was a lot better than annihilation.

                    The plan, of course, fell through. It just wasn't in keeping with the great overall plans of the Army, Navy and Air force. They had reached the ninth inning and they had their best sluggers coming up. But I wish I could have helped, someway."
                    I've heard stories about Japanese soldiers yelling, "To hell with Beibu Rusu!" to try to get American soldiers riled up...I somehow doubt it was very effective. They must have felt that Babe was held in the same regard in the US as their Emperor was in Japan, but I doubt many people felt Babe was a divine being (despite the heavenly swing).
                    I'd think that plan would have been incredibly dangerous...a white destroyer would have made a tempting target for a kamikaze pilot.
                    "If I drink whiskey, I'll never get worms!" - Hack Wilson

                    Comment


                    • Babe, Jack Dempsey and Mel Ott were every where doing their part for the war effort at home.
                      Attached Files

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
                        Some info found, Oct 1, 1932, WS, Wrigley Firld.
                        Tragically, Cermak was shot 4 months later and died 5 months later form a bullet intended for President-Elect Roosevelt

                        Comment


                        • Another Home Run By Babe: All Children's Hospital in St. Petersburg

                          "The Hospital That Ruth Helped Build"

                          http://www.allkids.org/body.cfm?xyzp...=detail&ref=26
                          Attached Files

                          Comment


                          • Bruce, Tim,
                            You know The Bam, it was always about the kids even up to the end. Saw some pics of him visiting some kids in April and May of 1948, very sick and weak at that time, gone in a few months.
                            Two biggest loves, baseball and children..................not sure which was first.

                            Comment


                            • Well said Shoeless. I've long maintained the largest aspect of Ruth was his heart. I can well imagine the demands on his time, and it was probably aggravating on occasion, but the Babe didn't let 'em down. Has any other celebrated American athlete ever given as much as the Babe? He'd sign autographs, visit orphanages, attend fundraisers (St. Mary's, etc.), you name it. No one gave more. All this in addition to providing inexpressible joy to millions while on the ball field. Even those who think he's overrated have to admit that he was the most accessible star in baseball. I always get a sense of joy when I see him awash in a sea of kids with smiles on their faces.

                              Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
                              Bruce, Tim,
                              You know The Bam, it was always about the kids even up to the end. Saw some pics of him visiting some kids in April and May of 1948, very sick and weak at that time, gone in a few months.
                              Two biggest loves, baseball and children..................not sure which was first.
                              ". . . the Ruth, the whole Ruth and nothing but the Ruth . . ."

                              Comment


                              • If we exclude all of Ruth's stats from 1914-1924, he probably still would have made the Hall of Fame. I.e, we are excluding 6 HR titles, 6 OPS+ titles, 4 World Series Titles, and 90+ wins on the mound.

                                From 1925-1935(ages 30-40), Ruth went: .336/.468/.673, 198 OPS+ with 430 HRs and 1331 RBI.

                                Actually, Ruth from 1914-1924 might have had the stats to get him into the Hall:
                                1914-1924(ages 19-29), he went: .351/.482/.712, 218 OPS+, 284 HRs, 889 RBI, AND 92-46 record, 2.25 ERA

                                If we handicap Ruth by including his Dead Ball years, yet exclude his best 5 year run(1920-1924, went .370/.511/.778, 229 OPS), Ruth still slugs .654 and outdistances everybody.

                                If we simply exclude Ruth's best 6 slugging years from his career(1920,1921,1923,1924, 1926, and 1927), Ruth still slugs .635 for his career(now edges WIlliams by 1 point) despite the fact that his decline and his dead ball years(1914-1918, 1932-1935) would now represent nearly half of his at-bats.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X