Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Progressing Toward Better Stats Thread

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

  • #31
    Ok, here's Mr. George Herman......all 1914 PA were at home, that's why it starts in 1915.

    After picking a few more specific players, I'll have the full excel file with AL OPS+ and will post it.

    RuthsOPS+.jpg

    A couple quick questions Brett.....

    1. I know we're removing the pitcher's batting by looking at league OPS+ but shouldn't we somehow attempt to replace that pitcher with a "DH" type batter to make a level playing field for later eras? Otherwise we have just eight hitters?

    2. Would it be more revealing or necessary to look at sOPS/650 or /162 for shorter career guys, or since it's a rate thing, it doesn't matter?
    Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 05-01-2014, 06:56 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
      Does that same issue exist in WAA?
      The only difference between WAR and WAA is the baseline used. Take out "replacement runs" and you have WAA. So yes, the same issue will exist in WAA.
      1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

      1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

      1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


      The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
      The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
        The only difference between WAR and WAA is the baseline used. Take out "replacement runs" and you have WAA. So yes, the same issue will exist in WAA.
        So you're telling me that you can use WAR; but just change the baseline to value greatness a bit more than career value, longevity, or simply showing up with a uniform on, and it will essentially be WAA? THAT'S the only difference?
        Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 05-01-2014, 10:02 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
          Does that same issue exist in WAA?

          Yes, if you play in a 5 run park, versus another player in a 4 run park, you have to create or save 5 runs for every 4 that they do at home to get a win in WAA.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
            So you're telling me that you can use WAR; but just change the baseline to value greatness a bit more than career value, longevity, or simply showing up with a uniform on, and it will essentially be WAA? THAT'S the only difference?
            WAR IS WAA, plus you get a chunk of wins (2.5 per full season) for playing average. It is easy to lose WAA if you are below average for some seasons, but you have to be pretty bad to lose WAR.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
              Ok, here's Mr. George Herman......all 1914 PA were at home, that's why it starts in 1915.

              After picking a few more specific players, I'll have the full excel file with AL OPS+ and will post it.

              [ATTACH]138325[/ATTACH]

              A couple quick questions Brett.....

              1. I know we're removing the pitcher's batting by looking at league OPS+ but shouldn't we somehow attempt to replace that pitcher with a "DH" type batter to make a level playing field for later eras? Otherwise we have just eight hitters?

              2. Would it be more revealing or necessary to look at sOPS/650 or /162 for shorter career guys, or since it's a rate thing, it doesn't matter?
              2) Doesn't matter, its a rate. OPS+ is the same no matter how many PAs you have.

              1) Putting in a DH would have a very small effect to bring down national leaguers OPS+, by maybe a little over 1%. But its very complicated. In the NL we get pinch hitters who might be better situationally than the DH. They count, as far as I can tell (though I have asked before if a pinch hitter bats for the pitcher does it go into the league rates for OPS+, or is considered to be a pitcher at bat?) The DH might have a 110 OPS+. Pinch hitters are certainly worse, but maybe the guy who DH's in the AL is starting in the NL. There are still as many roster spots, so there is somebody with value somewhere. And WAR/WAA accounts for it by slightly lowering baselines in the AL. I would be interested in seeing AL versus NL batting stats excluding pitchers.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by brett View Post
                I am posting Dimaggio's composite sOPS+ for home and away, independent of home offensive environment (ie park factor).

                This shows differences in Dimaggio's production at home versus all players in their home park, and with their home offensive setting put at the league average, and his road production versus all players on the road.

                In other words, when road OPS+ is higher than home OPS+ it strongly suggests that the player SPECIFICALLY benefitted in relative production from his home park. It cancels out effects that a park has on ALL players such as Coors field just boosting offense as a whole.

                I have also removed pitchers to make it consistent with OPS+ total. The only things it doesn't do is account for a player not having to hit in their home park on the road, and not facing their own pitching staff.



                Code:
                Road Pas	Road sOPS+	PAxsOPS+
                362	        163	                59006
                339	        201	                68139
                334	        145	                48430
                259	        242	                62678
                305	        180	                54900
                289	        221	                63869
                346	        186	                64356
                284	        192	                54528
                282	        155	                43710
                340	        189	                64260
                173	        213	                36849
                328	        196	                64288
                217	        125	                27125
                
                                3858	                 712138
                712138/3858=184.6 Career road sOPS+ including pitchers

                League OPS+ with pitchers is 94 in his seasons so to remove pitchers multiply his OPS+ by .94 to get:

                173.51 sOPS+

                His overall was 155 so to get the home sOPS+ take 155 x 2 minus 173.5 to get 136.49

                So Dimaggio had a 173.5 road relative OPS+ and a 136.5 home OPS+. Technically we should round them both to the 1s place, which would be 174 and 136. Quite telling of what his park did.
                Is it .94? I get a better fit with the data using .92. The adjustment isn't a constant is it? Wouldn't it vary over time with pitchers worse today, and better hitters back then?

                Also, since I am using the data, it's a small thing but the 1947 road PA was 307.
                Last edited by drstrangelove; 05-02-2014, 05:41 PM.
                "It's better to look good, than be good."

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
                  So you're telling me that you can use WAR; but just change the baseline to value greatness a bit more than career value, longevity, or simply showing up with a uniform on, and it will essentially be WAA? THAT'S the only difference?
                  Yes. Any issues somebody has with how WAR deals with position, defense, ANYTHING will be the same issues with WAA. The ONLY difference is the comparison baseline. ONLY. . You can take the same formula and compare to any baseline you want to. Wins Above Good. Wins Above All Star. Wins Above Cobb. Whatever you want.
                  1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                  1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                  1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                  The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                  The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Here's Double X

                    Foxx-sOPS+.jpg

                    League OPS+ file.....

                    Brett, you weren't kiddin' about the league OPS+ not changin' much. Just seems like it's not fully accounting for run environment. Heck, the '68 NL is the same as '28 NL.

                    Can we use something like innings pitched per earned run instead? Looking at that, 1968 would show to have 3.01 IP/ER and 1928 NL would be 2.25 IP/ER. Just a thought.
                    Attached Files

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
                      Here's Double X

                      [ATTACH]138351[/ATTACH]

                      League OPS+ file.....

                      Brett, you weren't kiddin' about the league OPS+ not changin' much. Just seems like it's not fully accounting for run environment. Heck, the '68 NL is the same as '28 NL.

                      Can we use something like innings pitched per earned run instead? Looking at that, 1968 would show to have 3.01 IP/ER and 1928 NL would be 2.25 IP/ER. Just a thought.

                      OPS+ is set at 100 each season. the only problem is that sOPS+ keeps pitchers in the league numbers, but traditionally we take pitchers out. The .94 just takes them back out. The .94 should not change because of run environment, it just says that removing pitchers raises the league production by about 6% per plate appearance. It is only a measure of pitchers batting effect on hitting, not run setting.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by brett View Post
                        OPS+ is set at 100 each season. the only problem is that sOPS+ keeps pitchers in the league numbers, but traditionally we take pitchers out. The .94 just takes them back out. The .94 should not change because of run environment, it just says that removing pitchers raises the league production by about 6% per plate appearance. It is only a measure of pitchers batting effect on hitting, not run setting.
                        Just like there's different levels of position hitters, there's different levels of hitting pitchers. Some get bunts down more often, move runners along, put the ball in play more often, etc...but you know that.

                        So..its' fine to remove pitchers. Shouldn't there be a step AFTER that though? Let's remove pitchers, and THEN adjust to run environment. There's no reason why the 1927 AL should have the same league OPS+ as the '59 and '60 AL.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
                          Just like there's different levels of position hitters, there's different levels of hitting pitchers. Some get bunts down more often, move runners along, put the ball in play more often, etc...but you know that.

                          So..its' fine to remove pitchers. Shouldn't there be a step AFTER that though? Let's remove pitchers, and THEN adjust to run environment. There's no reason why the 1927 AL should have the same league OPS+ as the '59 and '60 AL.
                          Sultan, OPS+ has already been adjusted to the league run environment. Ruth's road sOPS+ scores, and overall OPS+ has already been done relative to run environment. Same with someone in 1968. The 93, 94, 95 is the effect of pitchers, and yes it is a little different from year to year.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by brett View Post
                            Sultan, OPS+ has already been adjusted to the league run environment. Ruth's road sOPS+ scores, and overall OPS+ has already been done relative to run environment. Same with someone in 1968. The 93, 94, 95 is the effect of pitchers, and yes it is a little different from year to year.
                            If it's already been fully adjusted, then why do we constantly see people still adjusting for era? They adjust even after seeing these numbers that are already adjusted. I'm trying to get to a place where we've adjusted all the way, and then some.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
                              Yes. Any issues somebody has with how WAR deals with position, defense, ANYTHING will be the same issues with WAA. The ONLY difference is the comparison baseline. ONLY. . You can take the same formula and compare to any baseline you want to. Wins Above Good. Wins Above All Star. Wins Above Cobb. Whatever you want.
                              Damn, that would be ugly. There would be a whole mess of negative numbers all over the place!
                              "It ain't braggin' if you can do it." Dizzy Dean

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Herr28 View Post
                                Damn, that would be ugly. There would be a whole mess of negative numbers all over the place!
                                And I am sure the subtraction would be doubled if the player was a first baseman.
                                Your Second Base Coach
                                Garvey, Lopes, Russell, and Cey started 833 times and the Dodgers went 498-335, for a .598 winning percentage. That’s equal to a team going 97-65 over a season. On those occasions when at least one of them missed his start, the Dodgers were 306-267-1, which is a .534 clip. That works out to a team going 87-75. So having all four of them added 10 wins to the Dodgers per year.
                                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5hCIvMule0

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X