Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Progressing Toward Better Stats Thread

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

  • 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


                    • Originally posted by brett View Post
                      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, so slugging would look like .59 not .592 or .587.

                      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. 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.
                      It's interesting how baseball-almanac & fangraphs round up vs. baseball reference.

                      Example:
                      Fangraphs lists 1947 AL slg avg at .365
                      Baseball-almanac lists it precisely at .36445 rounded up to .365
                      Baseball reference lists AL slugging that year at .364

                      Apparently baseball reference rounds up 4 decimals while Fangraphs & BB almanac rounds up 5. .36445 rounds up to .3645 which round up to .365. BBRef's method seems to be .3644= .364.

                      I have always used BBref averages and will continue to do so probably because I agree with their methodology. (rounding first 4 digits instead of first 5)
                      Last edited by layson27; 05-27-2014, 10:15 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by brett View Post
                        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.
                        Yeah I wasnt trying to diminish the value of a walk. Just thought it would be interesting to see how counting totals, namely the so-called benchmark stats would change.

                        Anyway, a handful of final numbers are in the first post. See what you think. Should I list their actual OPS next to it? How much better is this one, than the one we already knew?

                        Comment


                        • Was also thinking about doing some comparison by those at your position, over your career.

                          And then I thought about WAA and the baseline thing. Speaking only of WAA here, could we somehow set the baseline as the avg, of say, the top 50 all-time at that particular position? Or maybe a bit higher if it sounds more fair.

                          Comment


                          • I like it. Really, what I will keep coming back for is the expected OPS+. You put in the work and that should stand as a reference. BBRef has had the single season sOPS+ on the road, but never did it for career, nor did they factor out pitchers.

                            I would like to see Piazza's next!

                            Comment


                            • Ok, he'll be the next guy I do in the main chart.

                              Anyway.....

                              Here's Roberto's best five and ten ADJ REL SA

                              Any other guys anyone is curious to see?

                              RobertoBest10.jpg
                              Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 05-28-2014, 05:43 PM.

                              Comment


                              • We have the top 5 slugging seasons for Mays & Aaron. I'd like to see how close they are after 10 years. I imagine they still would be very, very close.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X