Tweet
Relative stats, as far as I have been able to tell, were designed to account for changes in the game over the years. Some years had conditions that were more favorable to hitters, others more favorable to pitchers. We create relative stats by comparing a player's production to the league average in that stat, park adjusted, of course. But let's say we're comparing an AL player to an NL player today. The park effects are the same for both hitters. The AL player will almost certainly be playing in a higher run environment, or a higher OBP and SLG environment, for those who like OPS+. But what we don't account for is the effect of the DH. While the AL may still be more conducive to offense, the difference between the two leagues is not expressed entirely in the conditions making it easier for hitters in the NL. Part of the reason AL offense has been higher over the years is that we have a player whose job is to do nothing but hit replacing a pitcher who will most likely be very weak at the plate.
Why don't we account for the DH now? Is it a matter of difficulty? Or is it a value concept? That is, no matter the reason for the run environment being higher, the player who creates 100 runs in the AL simply doesn't produce as many games worth of offense as a player who does the same in the NL. Still, if the AL was equal to the NL in offense, and the only difference was the DH, wouldn't we be cheating AL players by downgrading their accomplishments more, even though they were competing in an environment every bit as difficult (or easy, if you prefer) for hitters as NL players?
Continuing with the relative stats theme, is there an effective way to tell when some years had low offense because of a dearth of hitting talent those years, and when low offense was truly created by the conditions of the game? Or when high offense is created by depth of hitting talent or the conditions? Maybe every year the hitting talent is about the same, and the averages are merely the result of rules changes, equipment changes, and the like. But maybe some years the league's pitching is simply a lot better than the league's hitting, and the low offense has nothing to do with conditions. You get the point. Do you have a preferred method of accounting for this possibility?
Why don't we account for the DH now? Is it a matter of difficulty? Or is it a value concept? That is, no matter the reason for the run environment being higher, the player who creates 100 runs in the AL simply doesn't produce as many games worth of offense as a player who does the same in the NL. Still, if the AL was equal to the NL in offense, and the only difference was the DH, wouldn't we be cheating AL players by downgrading their accomplishments more, even though they were competing in an environment every bit as difficult (or easy, if you prefer) for hitters as NL players?
Continuing with the relative stats theme, is there an effective way to tell when some years had low offense because of a dearth of hitting talent those years, and when low offense was truly created by the conditions of the game? Or when high offense is created by depth of hitting talent or the conditions? Maybe every year the hitting talent is about the same, and the averages are merely the result of rules changes, equipment changes, and the like. But maybe some years the league's pitching is simply a lot better than the league's hitting, and the low offense has nothing to do with conditions. You get the point. Do you have a preferred method of accounting for this possibility?
Comment