Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Schell's Fully Adjusted Stats

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

  • Schell's Fully Adjusted Stats

    Figured I'd make a separate thread, rather than continue to hijack the Clash of the Titans thread.

    Okay, here's how these work. Schell adjusts for 4 things:

    1. Mean performance of the era. You all know what this means.
    2. Park effects. His work really excels here. Rather than applying one broad park adjustment, as we see so often, he reasons that some parks are better for home runs than for batting average, and vice versa; some are good home run parks for lefties and some are good home run parks for righties; etc. So he has separate park adjustments for each offensive event analyzed, both from the right and left side!
    3. Talent pool. He uses the standard deviation of the offensive event in question to adjust for the talent pool of the league at the time.
    4. Late career declines. For each offensive event, the average productive career length is determined and becomes the basis for the number of at bats used to determine the fully adjusted stat for each player.

    Then, the numbers are transformed into something that is easily understood: their equivalents for the period 1977-1992. In other words, what follows is what each player's career average per 550 NFP's (number of times facing a pitcher) is worth in 1977-1992 currency, assuming equal ballpark effects. Obviously, had he translated the numbers into 1992-2004 stats, we'd see bigger power numbers; into 1900-1910 stats, smaller numbers, power-wise, but bigger numbers in other categories like steals. He chose 1977-1992 because this period had a nice balance of power and speed, and no one single baseball strategy predominating to the exclusion of all others.

    Note that the work rests on some assumptions, as all statistics do. He assumes that the quality of play has changed for the average player but not for the top performers - for eaxmple, the assumption is that a player in the 95th percentile in one era is the same as a 95th percentile in another era. He also assumes that universal changes in equipment or rules will affect all players equally (as do we all, when using mean-adjusted stats) when intuition says that this isn't true.

    Only players with 4000 or more at-bats plus walks and plus hit-by-pitches were chosen for analysis. So 1140 players qualified for analysis. And the book has the numbers listed for each of them. Here's a juicy selection:

    Hank Aaron

    .310 BA; 28 HR; .378 OBP; .546 SLG; 23 SB

    Ty Cobb

    .336 BA; 22 HR; .406 OBP; .550 SLG; 63 SB

    Joe DiMaggio

    .309 BA; 31 HR; .369 OBP; .582 SLG; 4 SB

    Barry Bonds

    .294 BA; 36 HR; .429 OBP; .584 SLG; 33 SB

    Mickey Mantle

    .302 BA; 32 HR; .416 OBP; .554 SLG; 28 SB

    Willie Mays

    .308 BA; 29 HR; .391 OBP; .566 SLG; 49 SB

    Honus Wagner

    .324 BA; 22 HR; .395 OBP; .551 SLG; 45 SB

    Babe Ruth

    .309 BA; 50 HR; .439 OBP; .673 SLG; 10 SB

    (Ruth leads all in fully adjusted HR and SLG.)


    Ted Wiliams

    .322 BA; 39 HR; .448 OBP; .628 SLG; 3 SB

    (Williams leads all in fully adjusted OBP.)


    Tony Gwynn

    .338 BA; 6 HR; .392 OBP; .451 SLG; 25 SB

    (Gwynn leads all in fully adjusted BA.)

    Rogers Hornsby

    .327 BA; 31 HR; .430 OBP; .597 SLG; 10 SB



    Despite the flaws in the assumptions, this is still light years better than the bogus "relative stats" drivel currently being paraded around as legitimate basis for cross-era comparisons.
    Last edited by Metal Ed; 04-03-2005, 01:22 PM.

  • #2
    --The examples seem like pretty good working assumptions to me. Obviously we can't know exactly how players would do outside their own time and place, but there is nothing on any of these players I'd say was seriously out of whack.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Metal Ed
      2. Park effects. His work really excels here. Rather than applying one broad park adjustment, as we see so often, he reasons that some parks are better for home runs than for batting average, and vice versa; some are good home run parks for lefties and some are good home run parks for righties; etc. So he has separate park adjustments for each offensive event analyzed, both from the right and left side!
      I've always been bothered by the park adjustment formula. It smears everything it touches; it's better than not adjusting, but its very, very, very flawed. VERY nice to see some more in-depth work in that field. Hopefully his work is adopted, or at least considered, by other sources.
      "Hall of Famer Whitey Ford now on the field... pleading with the crowd for, for some kind of sanity!"

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm also a little surprised by Joe DiMaggio's numbers. Only 4 SB per 550 PA? I woulda thought it would be a few more than that, when adjusting from the 40s when nobody ran, to the 80s when everyone ran. I'll defer to him, though. Does he record strikeouts? If so, what is DiMag's adjusted HR/K?
        "Hall of Famer Whitey Ford now on the field... pleading with the crowd for, for some kind of sanity!"

        Comment


        • #5
          You'll have to do the math yourself, but he has Joe D. at 48 K's and 31 HR's/550 NFP. Great for a power hitter.

          Adjusted K's/550 NFP

          1. Tony Gwynn 19.7
          2. Nellie Fox 22.0
          3. Joe Sewell 25.0
          4. Gregg Jefferies 26.7
          5. Fernando Vina 27.5


          Adjusted Strikeouts (Total)

          1. Reggie Jackson 2692
          2. Babe Ruth 2277
          3. Jimmie Foxx 2117
          4. Willie Stargell 1929
          5. Mickey Mantle 1916
          6. Tony Perez 1890
          7. Mike Schmidt 1882
          8. Andres Galarraga
          9. Lou Brock 1803
          10. Dale Murphy 1799


          Adjusted Total Bases

          1. Hank Aaron 6607
          2. Ty Cobb 6001
          3. Willie Mays 5892
          4. Stan Musial 5772
          5. Pete Rose 5660
          6. Babe Ruth 5583
          7. Carl Yastrzemski 5436
          8. Honus Wagner 5411
          9. Eddie Murray 5327
          10. Frank Robinson


          Hunh. Eddie Murray.

          Comment


          • #6
            --Murray is 9th all time in Total Bases for real too.

            Comment


            • #7
              Isn't Schell the guy who has the book that says that Tony Gwynn is the greatest hitter of all time?

              Comment


              • #8
                --I believe that is greatest hitter for average of all time. I think that is an entirely reasonable claim, if indeed that is what he wrote. Any era adjusted look at the greatest hitters for average would have to have Gwynn and Carew at least near the top. Which, I must hasten to add, is far from saying the best hitters. Merely the highest average guys.
                Last edited by leecemark; 04-04-2005, 06:40 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I never read the book but Schell came out with a book called Greatest Hitters of all time and I believe in that book he called Tony Gwynn the greatest hitter of all time. Of course I have a feeling it was only based on batting average, and perhaps it was his publishers who decided to market the book that way. To stir up controversy and to cash in on Tony Gwynn's retirement. But is still weird to have that title floating out there for Tony Gwynn.

                  Now I believe he just published his newest book about sluggers and I believe he gives the title of greatest slugger to Ruth.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Correct, the first book was about batting average, and by that criteria, Tony Gwynn was the greatest ever. The new book looks at slugging - actually, at every major offensive event you can name.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Metal Ed
                      Mickey Mantle

                      .302 BA; 32 HR; .416 OBP; .554 SLG; 28 SB

                      Willie Mays

                      .308 BA; 29 HR; .391 OBP; .566 SLG; 49 SB

                      Tony Gwynn

                      .338 BA; 6 HR; .392 OBP; .451 SLG; 25 SB

                      (Gwynn leads all in fully adjusted BA.)

                      Despite the flaws in the assumptions, this is still light years better than the bogus "relative stats" drivel currently being paraded around as legitimate basis for cross-era comparisons.
                      I don't think these are too far from relative stats, but the SB AVERAGE for Mantle is interesting considering that is a third again more than his BEST season actual total and almost a fourth again more than Mays' BEST SB year. Gwynn's adjusted BA leader sure downgrades Cobb & TWilliams
                      Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
                      Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        --Mantle and Mays played in a time when nobody stole much. Moved to the 77-92 timeframe it seems fairly certain they would have stolen more than in real life. I believe Gwynn is only .001 ahead of Cobb in BA. He doesn have the highest career BA of anybody who started their career after WWII. Taking the more competive nature of the modern game into account he seems a likely candidate for the honor.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by RuthMayBond
                          I don't think these are too far from relative stats, but the SB AVERAGE for Mantle is interesting considering that is a third again more than his BEST season actual total and almost a fourth again more than Mays' BEST SB year. Gwynn's adjusted BA leader sure downgrades Cobb & TWilliams
                          Cobb finished an extremely close second in BA. Williams was in the top 10, I can't remember the exact spot. I don't think either have been disrespected. Schell gives both much higher overall batter rankings than Gwynn when factoring in on base percentage and slugging.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by leecemark
                            I believe Gwynn is only .001 ahead of Cobb in BA. He doesn have the highest career BA of anybody who started their career after WWII. Taking the more competive nature of the modern game into account he seems a likely candidate for the honor.
                            Assuming this uses both mean adjusted and SD adjusted measures...

                            Considering Gwynn was the premier slap hitter in the greatest HR era in baseball history, it makes sense that his relative batting average in comparison to his league would be so fabulous (and, ergo, he would become the greatest average hitter in history after his numbers were run through a formula). Just like Ruth in the 20's concerning slugging and homeruns, his numbers are going to be artificially inflated because he was an iconoclast, not because he was actually that much better than everyone else.

                            The league slugging in Cobb's time was .354, ISO .090, HR% .071

                            In Gwynn's time the league slugging was .404, ISO .142, HR% 2.72

                            Of course, the fundamental change in the game (and how it diametrically contrasted Gwynn's style) is not reflected in any formula. When taking vital factors extrinsic to statistics into account (which, ironically, affect statistics in a very tangible way), it seems pretty likely that Cobb is still the greatest average hitter in history.
                            Last edited by csh19792001; 03-29-2006, 09:40 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              --I agree there is some merit to that Chris. I might be inclined to pick Carew myself. There were still lots of guys concentrating on average in his day and he dominating the batting charts to much the same extent in an era of (IMO) greater competitive balance than Gwynn. Clemente and Musial's names could be thrown into the argument as well. Cobb definately couldn't be ruled out either. Any of the players who were expected to win the batting title every year can have a case made for them.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X