Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Progressing Toward Better Stats Thread

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

  • Morgan takes another saber hit. Over the last 5-6 years, Morgan has really fallen from his early saber peak ("better than Gehrig and Aaron").

    New defensive metrics actually cost him proabably 7-8 wins because he tended to be rated as a b or b- fielder, but the metrics show that on balance he was below average.
    He drops if we look at situational splits too because his leveraged splits show that he hit much much worse when there were more runs on the table.
    And the road splits would indicate a loss of about another 6 wins.

    The road splits would knock him out of the top 25 in WAR, and the situational splits might cost him some more. I've dropped him from 15ish to around 21-22, but it looks to me like he is in a group of maybe 10 guys battling for the 25-35 slots.

    Though his 5 year peak was at an all time level, all things considered.

    Comment


    • Hornsby would also lose about 7 wins whether it be WAA or WAR. Mantle loses 4 or 5. He's lost a lot sabermetrically over the years from a top 5-8 candidate to lower teens. Though I still think that Yankees centerfielders tended to lose defensive value because of the dimensions of the park messing with official chances.

      Comment


      • And as good as Cobb is, I may have to move Gehrig up to my #3 slot as a hitter.

        Typically I had gone
        Ruth
        Williams
        Cobb
        Gehrig
        Hornsby

        with Cobb approaching Gehrig in OPS+ with the deadball (just minus 7 points in OPS+ but with a longer career). Gehrig now has a 19 point edge which puts him on another level.

        I would go with a solid
        Ruth
        Williams
        Gehrig
        Cobb

        right now, and Hornsby is now down in the mix, with Pujols probably taking the #5 spot and Dimaggio coming up to contend with Hornsby.

        Comment


        • Yeah I'd put DiMaggio barely ahead as a hittet, in part, because Hornsby's NL was pretty weak imo.

          As overall players, there's gonna be some space between em for sure.
          "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

          ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

          Comment


          • Originally posted by brett View Post
            And as good as Cobb is, I may have to move Gehrig up to my #3 slot as a hitter.

            Typically I had gone
            Ruth
            Williams
            Cobb
            Gehrig
            Hornsby

            with Cobb approaching Gehrig in OPS+ with the deadball (just minus 7 points in OPS+ but with a longer career). Gehrig now has a 19 point edge which puts him on another level.

            I would go with a solid
            Ruth
            Williams
            Gehrig
            Cobb

            right now, and Hornsby is now down in the mix, with Pujols probably taking the #5 spot and Dimaggio coming up to contend with Hornsby.
            Cobb's deadball dominance is hard to ignore, and I still have him #3, just barely ahead of Gehrig. But looking at how Gehrig compared to Ruth on the road from 1923-1934 (Gehrig's rookie year to Ruth's last year as a Yankee) is almost scary. Ruth of course has the big HR lead, but Gehrig dominates in doubles & triples. Ruth's lead in road OPS was only 28 points during that span.

            Though I still think that Yankees centerfielders tended to lose defensive value because of the dimensions of the park messing with official chances.
            Totally agree. In fact, if DiMaggio's bizarre -42 fielding runs in 1947 is replaced by a 0, it gives him over 80 FR which I think would move his WAA & WAR up to more "realistic" levels.
            Pujols probably taking the #5 spot
            To me that's a little high for someone who's only played 13+ seasons. On the other hand, I think as a hitter he either belongs just in front of Mays & Aaron because of his incredible first 11 years, or just behind them due to differences in career value. As of now I can't put him ahead of them. Also, where's Musial?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
              Yeah I'd put DiMaggio barely ahead as a hittet, in part, because Hornsby's NL was pretty weak imo.

              As overall players, there's gonna be some space between em for sure.
              Really? Which way?

              I am not sure who is the better player, or who should rank higher. I currently have Hornsby a few spots higher.

              Comment


              • Well, DiMaggio ahead but I shouldn't have spoke so soon. I plan on doing some personal adjustments.

                The first thing I'm going to adjust for is the catcher position, since it's the only defensive position that directly impacts offense. I'm thinking about * by 1.02 or 1.03 for that.

                I'm considering adding 1.01 for platoon for right handers. It would be larger, but for reasons you have mentioned, I think it's fair.

                You've mentioned Dimaggio's defense a couple times and I couldn't agree more. The gap to gap responsibility with a park like that..it makes a difference. I was fortunate enough to play centerfield for about 15 games down in Arizona, in Tempe Diablo and other ancillary fields in the area. Defending against aluminum bats, with CF over 440, it def changes the way you play. There's more fluctuation on position, depending on game situation; risk/reward to the extreme.

                I don't consider second base a difficult position. That position has the most margin for error, except for 1B of course, to still get your man. Third base would be next, but why? Only because the ball gets hit toward you harder, on average, than any other position.

                Anyway, I give DiMaggio the edge in fielding and baserunning, and I do consider the fact that he lost ages 28-30. That is his peak. His prime. Both elevators coming together for a three to four year period. He missed that, and I believe his '46 would have been better if he hadn't.

                I'm also considering a league adjustment but it's a multi-layered issue.

                The game was not setup for power. It was setup for batting average. Certain players thrived for the setup. Able to dominate in the accepted BA approach, but also branching out and slugging against the grain. This created a larger gap in that area.

                So the question is, do we punish those hitters, for others not being able to do what they could do? Or do we give them credit for not having to make a choice and thriving against the grain. They were unique.

                In later eras, when the game is setup for power, more players up and down the lineup are taking the same approach. Not because they are unique but because it's the easy route; the payday route.

                And in a league that doesn't care about BA or number of K's, there's nothing to lose. That's a problem.

                So I'm inclined to give a 1.04 boost to later era players, just trying to decide on the year. In part, because of specialized relief, smaller fields that result in a lower BA, better defense and scouting against them...but mostly because pretenders lower the gap.

                The primary point, is that these other players aren't forced to make a choice when they should have to. There is no choice to make. And that hurts modern sluggers. Dealing strictly with OPS+ and the ability to separate, I think they have an uphill battle.

                I'm trying to neutralize the game, to the point where middle infielders and most centerfielders are comfortable setting the table, because that's their role; and really, that's all they're capable of, with larger fields and a larger zone. Pujols doesn't need these dinky parks. Sure, he'd lose a few in larger stadiums, but there'd also be a lot more room for hits to drop and a true gap would be created between the legit and the frauds.

                Going back to the earlier players, I'm thinking about a .98 adjustment on OPS+ which probably isn't fair. That would include Hornsby and Ruth but I'm still trying to deal with the NL being weaker. For Williams and DiMaggio, probably a .99, for Aaron and Mays' era, 1.00 or no change. Maybe Schmidt and Morgan get a 1.02 and Griffey and Bonds get 1.04? Who knows, maybe I'm over-thinking it, but something should be done. Otherwise these later guys can never compete. There's a reason why they can't and I'm trying to address that.

                Still thinking about this, but bottom line; it's nice to have a solid, worthwhile base to work from. Thank you for helping me with the road expected.
                Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 06-02-2014, 07:07 PM.
                "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

                ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

                Comment


                • You know, I think that Dimaggio was a better hitter, and I think CF was probably comparable to second base at that point, and Dimaggio was a better fielder and Hornsby's league was a little weaker.

                  My tendancy to give it to Hornsby had been that he played longer, but probably only about 100 or so more games than Joe would have. Still that's almost 5%. Anyway, consider that straight up OPS+ has Hornsby with a 175 to 155 edge, and in reality they are nearly deadlocked, with Hornsby getting a little more edge coming earlier before the league had fully adjusted. So I'm not sure Dimaggio gets to my top 10 now, but I am probably less sure that Hornsby stays in my top 10. It's no insult from my point of view if Dimaggio is around 11-12. All of the guys above that were as good as it got when they played, but I still am impressed with the guys who could last for near 3000 games.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by brett View Post
                    You know, I think that Dimaggio was a better hitter, and I think CF was probably comparable to second base at that point, and Dimaggio was a better fielder and Hornsby's league was a little weaker.

                    My tendancy to give it to Hornsby had been that he played longer, but probably only about 100 or so more games than Joe would have. Still that's almost 5%. Anyway, consider that straight up OPS+ has Hornsby with a 175 to 155 edge, and in reality they are nearly deadlocked, with Hornsby getting a little more edge coming earlier before the league had fully adjusted. So I'm not sure Dimaggio gets to my top 10 now, but I am probably less sure that Hornsby stays in my top 10. It's no insult from my point of view if Dimaggio is around 11-12. All of the guys above that were as good as it got when they played, but I still am impressed with the guys who could last for near 3000 games.
                    I think you view things fairly Brett, that's why I wanted to get your opinion, if I'm going overboard. I don't wanna go all Mad Scientist and screw with a perfectly good potion. So I need your feedback.

                    My personal opinion on your approach, is that you're tied toward favoriting longevity. That's a dangerous game. If we took two guys; one bowled 300 games and one bowled 500 games, wouldn't you really only care about their best 50? Who gives a rip how "long they lasted." Some guy coulda bowled 600 games very good and then 300 more at average level. But his best 50 would still matter more than anything. What were they at their best?

                    Even if you give Hornsby an even defensive viewpoint, his OPS+ is greatly inflated by a weaker league and others not being able to slug like he could. I went through this in my earlier post. It's a tough issue. How much credit to give to a trailblazer with unique ability when the game didn't call for it.

                    What I'm sure of, is that catchers need consideration, righties need a little consideration, and in later eras where everyone is taking the same approach (which hinders separation), hitters need an adjustment. I don't see why Albert shouldn't be in the low to mid 180s. Think about the freak of our era "only" being in the 160's. Something doesn't jive, and I'm onto it. We can keep their raw numbers in perspective, given how the environment is, but when being compared to the league, they are better than they appear imo. The elites, that is.

                    Looking at stats this way, has given me a new perspective. Had never done that before. I'm not in favor of giving modern players a boost because the league is necessarily harder; although there are tough factors that impact everyone. It's giving the true sluggers a boost because it's easier for everyone else and they aren't allowed to shine bright as they could.
                    Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 06-02-2014, 09:15 PM.
                    "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

                    ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

                    Comment


                    • I think longevity is of some importance because some guys played in a style that let them last longer, and some guys just put in the work, or had the makeup to last longer. But granted Mays was on the decline after age 34. But its still 1000 games with a 138 OPS+ after age 34. Simply stated, not every great player can have a great decline. But if we use a high enough baseline like near WAA (I use the average of WAR and WAA, or a 40% baseline), then added seasons at a reduced level don't put a lot of extra wins on the table. See Ripken. We can credit longevity for Ripken, but see that it just does not add up to that much in WAA, at least not compared to before that. Mays had 94 WAA through age 35 and only added 16 in another 800+ games. It doesn't put him on another level, but it still makes a difference in finding the fine lines between closely ranked players. And when a player has a freak injury by something outside of just his playing style I factor it differently too.

                      Comment


                      • Here's Dante Bichette, 1993-1999, Colorado years.

                        Home sluggin - .642
                        Road sluggin -- .432



                        Bichette1993-1999.jpg
                        "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

                        ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by brett View Post
                          I think longevity is of some importance because some guys played in a style that let them last longer, and some guys just put in the work, or had the makeup to last longer. But granted Mays was on the decline after age 34. But its still 1000 games with a 138 OPS+ after age 34. Simply stated, not every great player can have a great decline. But if we use a high enough baseline like near WAA (I use the average of WAR and WAA, or a 40% baseline), then added seasons at a reduced level don't put a lot of extra wins on the table. See Ripken. We can credit longevity for Ripken, but see that it just does not add up to that much in WAA, at least not compared to before that. Mays had 94 WAA through age 35 and only added 16 in another 800+ games. It doesn't put him on another level, but it still makes a difference in finding the fine lines between closely ranked players. And when a player has a freak injury by something outside of just his playing style I factor it differently too.
                          That makes sense. Don't think there is a right or wrong, just preference.

                          I'd like to do top 10 or so from each position. Oh, another thing I was gonna ask ya....what would the process be for pitchers' expected ERA+?
                          "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

                          ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
                            That makes sense. Don't think there is a right or wrong, just preference.

                            I'd like to do top 10 or so from each position. Oh, another thing I was gonna ask ya....what would the process be for pitchers' expected ERA+?
                            Wow I never thought about that before. Of course pitchers may get a special benefit from their park, especially if they favor their handedness.

                            OK here's the working model. Take road ERA. Divide it by 1.04. Divide that by the league's real ERA for the season.

                            By the way, it looks like Puckett should take a big cut like 10+ OPS+ points when we use road numbers. This is part of a discussion on the Garvey thread. It's important because he's already a fringe hall of famer for me, and would likely make the decision clear if he takes that kind of cut.

                            Do whatever you want with a handedness adjustment or for catchers, but please leave the column with just the road predicted. Then add another column if you want. Then you are being totally honest and letting people see the one that is purely objective, and the one that has an objective component.

                            Also, would you like me to give each player a +/- wins score based on the road numbers? That could go into WARP, WAR or WAA. For example Dimaggio would be something like +11 road predicted wins? Anyway that's where I'm headed.

                            I'd rather use the WAR format and then adjust out the things I don't like, changing the baseline, using different defensive metrics, road numbers, post season adjustment. I think that is the best way to get the objective rating I want and then I can adjust one last time based on things that can't be put into numbers, or that are out of our reach.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by brett View Post
                              Wow I never thought about that before. Of course pitchers may get a special benefit from their park, especially if they favor their handedness.

                              OK here's the working model. Take road ERA. Divide it by 1.04. Divide that by the league's real ERA for the season.

                              By the way, it looks like Puckett should take a big cut like 10+ OPS+ points when we use road numbers. This is part of a discussion on the Garvey thread. It's important because he's already a fringe hall of famer for me, and would likely make the decision clear if he takes that kind of cut.

                              Do whatever you want with a handedness adjustment or for catchers, but please leave the column with just the road predicted. Then add another column if you want. Then you are being totally honest and letting people see the one that is purely objective, and the one that has an objective component.

                              Also, would you like me to give each player a +/- wins score based on the road numbers? That could go into WARP, WAR or WAA. For example Dimaggio would be something like +11 road predicted wins? Anyway that's where I'm headed.

                              I'd rather use the WAR format and then adjust out the things I don't like, changing the baseline, using different defensive metrics, road numbers, post season adjustment. I think that is the best way to get the objective rating I want and then I can adjust one last time based on things that can't be put into numbers, or that are out of our reach.
                              Ok so just for an example. Maddux's away ERA is 3.36 (2.96 at home)....so 3.36/1.04 = 3.230

                              From there, I need to get the NL league ERA from 1986 to 2008, and THAT'S the final number?

                              No, no Brett...I'm doing nothing with handed-ness, catchers, or anything in the chart. Those are set-in-stone numbers and it's completely up to the viewer to do with them, what they may.

                              I was only explaining to you, my thought process after seeing the final number. I definitely think catchers should get something. I also think righties should get something, although probably less than I thought before, since you made good points on the issue.

                              The big break-through for me personally, was realizing that modern players need something. Many factors which we've discussed ad nauseam but the biggest thing for me, is that the true sluggers cannot separate like they should be able to. Some of the reasons why, also impact them favorably, but they don't gain anywhere near the advantage that the pretenders do.

                              Anyway, I'm not going to F with the chart at all, so no worries.

                              By the way, did a few more players. Check Kingman gaining 2 OPS points (no thanks to his OBP) and there's also a log jam at 147 with Schmidt, FRobinson, Heilmann, and FThomas, only .02 points separating them all.

                              Also Kiner and Mcgriff tied at 138.4. Had to go to the next decimal (.002) to break that tie. If there's any doubt gaps are up near the elites, and it gets tighter and tighter as you get further down...look no further.

                              Oh my..had never looked at Puckett's splits before. I'd say def an 8-12 point drop. Hitting on carpet, never any wind, great hitters backdrop, margin for error oppo with the baggie...that'll do it.
                              Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 06-04-2014, 07:38 PM.
                              "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

                              ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

                              Comment


                              • Ok

                                Walter

                                Home - 4.254 IP/ER
                                Away - 3.139 IP/ER

                                That's more than inning. Pretty significant?

                                Grove

                                Home - 2.918 IP/ER
                                Away - 2.970 IP/ER

                                We need to talk more about this pitcher thing.

                                Let's focus on the hitters for now, yes?
                                "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

                                ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X