Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Progressing Toward Better Stats Thread

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

  • Originally posted by Herr28 View Post
    You are always defending these new guys against my old favorites.

    HAHAHAHA!!! See how easy that happens?
    Who, muah?

    I think most would say I'm the opposite if anything. Plus, I'm an Enos guy, just like you :gt

    Comment


    • Originally posted by brett View Post
      209.

      No the only reason to use the 94 or 95 is to take pitchers out of the league. OPS+ for a player is compared to non-pitchers, but the league OPS+ includes pitchers which is why it is a little less than 100. We just want to multiply by the .93 or .94 to remove the pitcher's defecit from the league an bring it back to 100. OPS+ for non pitchers is already adjusted to the run environment to make it 100 in all seasons.
      Oh I gotcha. So all the adjustments have already been done, and that .94 is the final touch, removing pitchers. So for players in the AL with DH, should we just use the NL number for them?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
        Who, muah?

        I think most would say I'm the opposite if anything. Plus, I'm an Enos guy, just like you :gt
        They just talked about Country during the 5th inning of the Yankees v Cardinals game in The Lou. Jeter, at 39, was mentioned as one of the oldest Yankees to have a 4-hit game, and good ol' Country Slaughter was one of the other 2 names they mentioned.
        "It ain't braggin' if you can do it." Dizzy Dean

        Comment


        • Originally posted by brett View Post
          If we ever get the complete data I believe that we will find that Boggs relative OB% did not drop much on the road, but he lose 16-17 points off his OPS+ when adjusted. That is over half his Rbat, maybe 25 WAR. It drops him from 90ish to 65ish.

          Also he is rated as much as 150 defensive runs worse in PCA. If that is right he'd be a 50 war player. I think he deserves some credit for learning to take advantage of his park, but I think he's around a top 60 player rather than a top 30 player.
          Here's his best five OBP seasons. Ten points is pretty significant drop wouldn't you say. Even more than the seven point SA drop in best five. His BA would probably be the biggest drop of the three slashes.

          BoggsBest5OBP.jpg
          Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 05-26-2014, 05:51 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herr28 View Post
            They just talked about Country during the 5th inning of the Yankees v Cardinals game in The Lou. Jeter, at 39, was mentioned as one of the oldest Yankees to have a 4-hit game, and good ol' Country Slaughter was one of the other 2 names they mentioned.
            Who was the third guy?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
              Oh I gotcha. So all the adjustments have already been done, and that .94 is the final touch, removing pitchers. So for players in the AL with DH, should we just use the NL number for them?
              So with the DH they don't include interleague when they calculate OPS+ for the league. So the pitchers are already removed so the OPS+ is 100 and we don't make an adjustment. To multiply them by the NL number would wrongly hurt AL hitters because the league rates already don't have pitchers in them. Now we could argue that AL hitters should get a small boost because DHs contribute to the league rates. DHs hit about 10% better than the non-DH league as a whole, so dividing by 9 spots in the lineup, theoretically a player from a DH league might deserve to get his final OPS+ multiplied by 1.01, but that is based on average DH production over a long period of time.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
                Who was the third guy?
                I think Ruth had a 4 hit game at age 40 with the Braves. Didn't he hit 3 home runs and have 4 hits in one of his last games?

                Comment


                • Pre DH league yearly OPS+ averages seem to vary from 93 to 95. brett, you were right- DiMaggio's league OPS+ was .935 (93.5 divided by 100) making his expected OPS+ 166. I wonder- should all league OPS+ averages be taken to three digits for this exercise? It would seem to make a small, but real difference.
                  Last edited by layson27; 05-26-2014, 07:34 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by brett View Post
                    I think Ruth had a 4 hit game at age 40 with the Braves. Didn't he hit 3 home runs and have 4 hits in one of his last games?
                    Yeah on 5/25 (happens to be the gfs birthday) he had a single with his three dingers at Forbes. I read that as if they had to be playing for the Yanks when hitting them.

                    The part of Jenkinsons first book, where he talks about Ruth's 1935 season was intriguing. He delved into that season and gave an accurate assessment of Ruths abilities. He was all but done outside the batters box but when healthy, he could clearly still swing it.

                    Back to the four hit thing, I doubt Ruth had many. There was the 5-5 game against Washington where he had like two singles and three doubles, but less than a handful of 4 hit games I bet.

                    Not many games where he would get 5 or even 4 AB to try. Just looked up him and Williams PA per AB. Babe at 1.26 and Williams 1.27. Even extending the zone the way Ruth did, he was walked a ton. The intentional numbera would blow people away if we knew em.
                    Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 05-26-2014, 08:00 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by layson27 View Post
                      Pre DH league yearly OPS+ averages seem to vary from 93 to 95. brett, you were right- DiMaggio's league OPS+ was .935 (93.5 divided by 100) making his expected OPS+ 166. I wonder- should all league OPS+ averages be taken to three digits for this exercise? It would seem to make a small, but real difference.

                      Keep all the digits in the league OPS+ until you multiply it by the player's OPS+. Then round. (technically we are not quite rounding correctly from a scientific standard at the end though, but I am not going to be too picky about that right now).

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by layson27 View Post
                        Pre DH league yearly OPS+ averages seem to vary from 93 to 95. brett, you were right- DiMaggio's league OPS+ was .935 (93.5 divided by 100) making his expected OPS+ 166. I wonder- should all league OPS+ averages be taken to three digits for this exercise? It would seem to make a small, but real difference.
                        Ive been going out four digits lately.

                        Comment


                        • Speaking of walks, just curious....

                          If you added walks to AB and used their known production rate to get totals for hits, doubles, triples, homers....how would that process be done?

                          Let's look at everyones favorite, Mickey Mantle.

                          If you add his 1733 walks to his 8102 AB, he's at 9835.

                          His known production rate is

                          1B/AB - 5.537
                          2B/AB - 23.552
                          3B/AB - 112.527
                          HR/AB - 15.115
                          K/AB -- 4.738

                          Is it as simple as dividing 9835 by 15.115 for homers, to get 651?

                          If that's the case, his 3.35 AB/H doesn't even get him to 3,000 hits, at 2,936. Weird.

                          I guess you could do something with SH or even HBP to truly get expected production if they truly got a chance to hit.

                          Aaron ends with 840 HR and Ruth has 889 HR. Ok, nothing productive, but fun.
                          Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 05-26-2014, 11:38 PM.

                          Comment


                          • The thing is that players rates don't necessarily stay the same if they walk less. And for gosh sakes a walk is worth more than just about any average non-walk at bat for anyone. Linear weights says that a walk is worth .35 runs.

                            If you slugged .850 and batted .400 you are only creating about .23 runs per at bat.

                            Ruth produced about 2500 net runs in about 10,000 plate appearances, but if someone walked every time they would produce about 3500. Now THAT might be something interesting but we would need to know the linear weights value for a walk for each year. How close a player came to being worth more than he would have been if they had just walked him every time. Using those numbers, Ruth for his career comes out being worth about .714 (ironic) of the value that someone would have if they walked every time in random situations.

                            Let's see how close Ruth comes in his top rate seasons.

                            In 1920 I have Ruth worth about 177 total runs, and a 100% walk rate to be worth about 216 for a rate of about .819
                            In 1923 I have Ruth at about 192 and a 100% walk rate worth about 244 for a rate of .787

                            I have always thought that a few players like Ruth, and also Williams and Hornsby and Bonds when their OB% starts to get real close to or above .500 they were really changing the entire approach to pitching to them, but we do see that no one QUITE reached the level where they outperformed 100% walk rate.

                            Comment


                            • Commentary for scientific statisticians
                              If anyone is questioning the technicalities of how we round, we should technically round our final OPS+'s to just 2 places, as well as all of our final rates.

                              This is because we are using league OPS+ numbers to remove pitchers and those OPS+ numbers tend to have 2 digits (ie 94 or 93 or 95). However, it is my opinion the concerning significant figures that when you are using an implicit 100 point scale, you should not lose a significant figure just because your final average is slightly less than 100 rather than slightly above 100. If pitcher outhit the league and league OPS+ scores were 101 versus 99, I don't believe that justifies one less degree of accuracy for the 99 than the 101. We could just arbitrarily make OPS+ on a 200 point scale from 100 up and get another digit in all the answers without having any more real accuracy.

                              Hits and at bats are discrete variables so we don't have to limit our significant figures ie 99 hits in 326 at bats is .30368098 as far as we want to go because you can't have half a hit or half an at bat, but I personally believe that when you have an implicit three place (or 4 place or 5 place) scale you should keep the same number of digits whether you are just below (99) or just above (102) the number of digits in the scale.

                              Everyone else can start reading again.
                              Last edited by brett; 05-27-2014, 09:49 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Holy smokes, that needed a "blurred vision, dizziness, or severe instant headache" disclaimer.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X